glen e. p. ropella wrote: > But the trick with any compression or > encoding is that the simpler the "law", the more complex the codec and > vice versa. Simple codec means complex law. Simple law means complex > codec. And a law is totally useless without its codec, the body of > knowledge that allows one to encode into and decode out of the > compressed form. > A `codec' is just a function that derives a signal from the set of observable properties. Its definition typically would imply an ontology, unless there was machine learning in use. The underlying ontology may be objectionable to a potential a user of the codec, or they may even find the set of properties inadequate. But all that's really required to make it science is to declare the mechanisms of the codec and the properties being observed. Refusing to accept any declaration (and to my mind it is valid to call this `simplification'), is to prefer magic.
Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
