4 ms·
This is the Chaitin of Kolmogorov-Solomonoff-Chaitin complexity, if the argument seems familiar. I like Grassberger-Crutchfield-Young (http://www.scholarpedia.
by curuinor 11y ago
This is the Chaitin of Kolmogorov-Solomonoff-Chaitin complexity, if the argument seems familiar.
I like Grassberger-Crutchfield-Young (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complexity http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complexity, look for Statistical complexity) complexity, because it can actually be measured.
I had long suspicions that Chaitin was a Leibnitzian, but there you go. I like thinking about the Principle of Sufficient Reason, too, but I have long suspected the phenomenon of causality can be more simply explained by positive feedback effects _only_. (http://howonlee.github.io/2016/01/21/Poking-20At-20Causation1.html http://howonlee.github.io/2016/01/21/Poking-20At-20Causation...)
- joe_the_user 11y agoThe thing is that any computable complexity measure allows one to algorithmically produce an infinite which seems to have a complexity which goes to infinite as it get longer but since it is the product of a finite length computer program has finite complexity. On the other hand, you can prove that for "nearly all" finite sequences of symbols, the algorithmic complexity is within a constant of naive statistical measures.
- dllthomas 11y agoHow is that done? My naive approach would be "always pick the next symbol that most increases complexity" but that doesn't seem guaranteed to diverge and could easily be trapped in local Maxima...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]