Relevance of Old Testament in Modern World

[Kuciwalker]

I know that there are good descriptions. I am pointing out that if you use this definition of string test, it would fail.

Point being that just because something has an infinite description doesn't mean that it is valid to not consider it.

JM
(Pi might not have been the best example, it is just the first that came to mind.)

What the **** are you talking about?

Jon, if a theory doesn't have a finite description IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HOW CAN YOU USE A THEORY WITHOUT A FINITE DESCRIPTION OF IT.

Think about this for awhile, Jon.

[Kuciwalker]

I know.

You are missing the point. There exists things which are not computable. Pi was a bad example of it.

Using this test would fail non-computable things always.

No.

[KrazyHorse]

Can you provide examples of non-computable numbers which are key to current theories? Seems like a pretty good argument AGAINST a given theory, dude. Why the hell do you think we avoid strongly-coupled theories?

Jon, you're not making a whole lot of sense here.

[Kuciwalker]

We were talking about comparing explanations for events. And using 'simpler' as a test. This definition of simpler only works for a subset of things. Thus it is not a tool that can be used to define 'simpler' in every situation and is obviously not clearly defined when dealing with God.

No.

[Kuciwalker]

For the record, all interesting non-computable numbers have finite descriptions. What they lack are finite generators.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea what he's on about right now.

"pi is infinite therefore it fails Occam's Razor"
"No, it's got very short mathematical descriptions which make its complexity low"
"Yeah, but what about non-computable numbers/theories"
"That's why we don't use non-computable theories and numbers"
"You're missing the point"

What the hell IS your point, Jon?

[KrazyHorse]

For the record, all interesting non-computable numbers have finite descriptions. What they lack are finite generators.

This sounds like something you could mess with using a godel-type construction

[Kuciwalker]

KH, a description is just something like "pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter", "Chaitin's constant is the proportion of halting programs on a given Turing machine", etc.

[Jon Miller]

I need to read papers, will reply later.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I understand the difference between a description and a generator, Kuci.

[Jon Miller]

This sounds like something you could mess with using a godel-type construction

This is what I was thinking of, but I could be wrong.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

And if you did so, what would be the point? We don't use theories based on these objects because doing so wouldn't be science (they make no predictions!)

[Jon Miller]

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/.../279ludwig.pdf is one paper I found, to look up references/etc.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, instead of posting a paper can you explain what point you were trying to make?

[Jon Miller]

And if you did so, what would be the point? We don't use theories based on these objects because doing so wouldn't be science (they make no predictions!)

Of course, but we weren't talking about science? Or maybe I misunderstood.

There are a lot more problems with developing a scientific description of God than this.

JM