Is this just the idea that there exists a kind of Kolmolgorov complexity for hand-wavy epistemology, where it is possible to find or derive the shortest algorit

Is this just the idea that there exists a kind of Kolmolgorov complexity for hand-wavy epistemology, where it is possible to find or derive the shortest algorithm for producing a given output/hypothesis? If you are willing to engage the authors tediousness, it doesn't matter what he ultimately tells you, because by finishing it you have already invested and committed to the idea that the author has something meaningful and valuable to say, and you are left trying to piece together an interpretation that serves this flawed and tendentious premise. The article is meaningless, the writing is designed to exploit your sunk-cost bias in having finished it. It is just an expression of the authors self-importance and a mental virus for suckers. But wait, clearly I have misunderstood and it is my own set of intellectual limitations and beliefs that has placed me outside the circle of initiates. Just because there is some valuable or satisfying bait at the bottom of it doesn't make it any less of a trap. This medium doesn't provide for merely lifting a middle finger in the air to the author, but I hope these words have expressed the sentiment adequately.