[FoRK] That's a bunch of Malarkey

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Tue Jan 20 09:26:27 PST 2015

On 1/20/15 7:16 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> In Information Theory, don't you have to have a minimum of a N+1 bit axiomatic theory to prove that something in an N-bit 
> axiomatic space is the simplest, least complex, or elegant (the rigid, formal definition)?
> I was just poking fun at Stephen.

Heh.  And I was making fun back.  But you were just throwing softballs.  How about a real quandry to puzzle out?

> Supposed I created a game where I had a variable X and I assigned it the value 42.
> 42 has meaning outside of your experiment.  I don't think X should equal 42.
> No, I said I assigned it 42, but I didn't define equals yet.  It's my experiment.

What does the symbol 42 mean in your experiment?  What is a variable?  (Variable is a great callsign by the way.  Is variable 
Variable?  Does he have the ammo for 42?)
And what is God doing in this experiment?  That's always an important question.

Without knowing the probability of heaven happening, this problem is ill defined as posed.

Your allusion to life, the universe, and everything is really putting a lot on Variable's shoulders.  Must be some plot line.

> Greg
> "Those who make the rules win" -- Plato
> On 1/20/2015 12:01 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org> wrote:
>>> Occam's razor is a scientific principle, aka a philosophical heuristic to
>>> problem solving.   Pascal's payout matrix is solved using a computation.
>> Occam’s Razor is a bit more than a philosophical heuristic though it is often presented that way. It is also an expression of a 
>> general mathematical theorem, admittedly proved millennia after the existence of the heuristic. Occam’s Razor, used correctly, is 
>> not excludable in any rigorous discussion.


More information about the FoRK mailing list