why not high complexity?

From: Karl Stiefvater <qarl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:11:33 -0500

O O O OO O hi.
  O O
 OOOO OO i've just stumbled upon this discussion - i'm
OO O trying to catch up. i have a question/comment -
 OO OOO OO i'm wondering if it's been raised before - and
O OOO O O which message i should jump forward to to find
   O OOOO its answer.
 O O O
 O OO OO Max Tegmark suggests that ".. all mathematical
 O O OOOO structures are a priori given equal statistical
OO OO O weight" and Jurgen Schmidhuber counters that
 O O OOO "there is no way of assigning nonvanishing
   OOO O probability to all (infinitely many)
OO OOOOO mathematical structures" and he then goes on
     O (i think) to assign a weighting based upon
  OO OOO time-complexity.
O OO O O
O O OOO i have to say i find Tegmark's argument more
OOOOOO O persuasive - i can't see why the great
  O OOOOO programmer should be worried about runtime.
O OOOOO OO furthermore, i feel intuitively that the
      O O universes ought to have equal weight.
OOOOO O
 OO OO such a sort of probability can be defined, of
    O O O course, by taking the limit as finite subsets
OOOOOOOO O approach the full infinite set. as long as we
O O OOO get the same answer regardless of the order in
O O O which we grow the subset, the limit can be said
OOO O O O to be defined.
  O O O O
O O O the problem is - such a view predicts that we
O O OO live in a universe of high Kolmogorov complexity
OO OO O - not low complexity.
O O
OOOOO OO O but i don't see why this is such a surprise
 O O - living in such a universe, we ought to see
   OO OO O events occur which we cannot effectively
O OOO O O predict. but that is exactly what we do see.
    OOOO
OO O O O thanks.
 O O O
   OOOOOOO
  OOO -k
Received on Sun May 27 2001 - 22:13:11 PDT