Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by Bromskloss on Thursday October 26, 2017 @01:41PM
(#15561208)
Maybe even _that_ reasoning relies upon simple hypotheses being more likely. In this case, the simple, and therefore favoured, hypothesis would be that "models with a simplicity that is similar to that of other successful models are more likely to be true".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by balabaster on Thursday October 26, 2017 @03:54PM
(#15562412)
Assuming that other successful models are also true and not just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by Bromskloss on Thursday October 26, 2017 @05:53PM
(#15563413)
Let's forget that I said "true", and switch it to "successful" instead.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by lmm on Thursday October 26, 2017 @03:34PM
(#15562230)
That sounds like a more complex hypothesis to me.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by Bromskloss on Thursday October 26, 2017 @05:52PM
(#15563403)
Maybe it's simpler than "models with a simplicity that is dissimilar to that of other successful models are more likely to be true", though it's not obvious what should be considered simple and not.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram
by lmm on Friday October 27, 2017 @04:01AM
(#15566506)
Kolgomorov complexity seems like the obviously correct measure, though AIUI it's only defined relative to some fixed Turing machine.
I have an idea of doing a PageRank-style weighting of Turing machines, based on how simple/complex simulating one under another is. That would align with my intuition that most basic universal Turing machines are equally valid, but one that has (say) a short instruction that outputs one particular long sequence of symbols is probably not a valid machine to use.