So you claim that a K-complexity prior will work better because our universe is likely to have low K-complexity. This is circular—a justification of Occam’s razor that takes for granted your own intuitive concept of Occam’s razor. Kelly’s work makes no such assumption, that’s why it looks valuable to me.
So you claim that a K-complexity prior will work better because our universe is likely to have low K-complexity. This is circular—a justification of Occam’s razor that takes for granted your own intuitive concept of Occam’s razor. Kelly’s work makes no such assumption, that’s why it looks valuable to me.