On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:03:21AM -0600, Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: > There are a number of things Chaitin talks about that seem problematic to > me. But the mathematical joy remains. > > Central to the disconnect for me is a series of related statements beginning > with- > > "A law has to be simpler than what it explains." "To understand is to > compress." "The laws of physics must be simpler than what they explain." > > Why does a law have to be simpler? What is simpler? I suppose that is the > reason to be for complexity science that life appears to more likely move > from simpler to more complex. > > But more than that I am wondering what drives the desire to see the world > this way. This point of view, it seems to me, is what stops certain streams > of mathematics and philosophy from being able to address life in both the > formal in informal senses. Certainly biological life. >
Chaitin's comment is more of an insight into how cognition works. Some of my colleagues in The Centre for the Mind have said to me privately that human cognition works this way, and that they expect all intelligences (eg AI) would work that way too. There are good evolutionary reasons why we compress. When presented with a messy signal from the environment, we need to make a snap decision about whether to fight, flee or ignore some specific stimulus. Is that shape over there a real lion, or is it just a lion-shaped rock? By the time we analytically solved the problem using logic, we would be eaten (if it really was a lion). Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
