**From:** Peter de Blanc (*peter.deblanc@verizon.net*)

**Date:** Mon Aug 22 2005 - 19:24:56 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Emotional intelligence"**Previous message:**H C: "RE: Emotional intelligence"**In reply to:**Daniel Radetsky: "does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 17:15 -0700, Daniel Radetsky wrote:

*> Vassar wants to say that despite my objections, we ought worry about
*

*> exploits
*

*> but not ninja hippos because the claim "there are exploits" has a
*

*> higher prior
*

*> probability than "there are ninja hippos." This is because, according
*

*> to
*

*> Vassar, the Kolmogorov complexity of e, the first proposition, is
*

*> greater than
*

*> the complexity of h, the second proposition.
*

I think his point was that the class of phenomena which we would call

"exploits" is much larger than the class of phenomena which we would

call "ninja hippos."

By the way, it doesn't really make sense to speak of the Kolmogorov

complexity of a set of possible outcomes as a means to determine the

probability that the actual outcome will fall within that set.

Kolmogorov complexity is only useful for assigning priors to *specific*

outcomes.

For example, given the sequence 1, 2, ...,

the statement "3 or 4 is next" is less complex than the statement "3, 4,

or 5 is next," but clearly the latter statement at least as likely as

the former. It would make more sense to compare the Kolmogorov

complexity of "1, 2, 3" with the Kolmogorov complexity of "1, 2, 4" and

"1, 2, 5."

Given infinite resources, what you should REALLY do is generate all

possible programs, ordered by size, and assign a prior to each program:

maybe something like 2^-n, where n is the index of the program (starting

with 1). Then the probability that the next digit is 3 is the sum of the

priors of all programs whose output begins with "1, 2, 3," divided by

the sum of the priors of all programs whose output begins with "1, 2."

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Emotional intelligence"**Previous message:**H C: "RE: Emotional intelligence"**In reply to:**Daniel Radetsky: "does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT
*