As you suggest, it seems that human understanding of a “simple description” is not in line with Kolmogorov complexity.
Rather than this, I’m suggesting that natural language is not in line with complexity of the “minimum description length” sort. Human understanding in general is pretty good at it, actually—it’s good enough to intuit, with a little work, that gravity really is a simpler explanation than “intelligent falling, ” and that the world is simpler than solipsism that just happens to replicate the world. Although humans may consider verbal complexity “a good heuristic,” humans can still reason well about complexity even when the heuristic doesn’t apply.
Rather than this, I’m suggesting that natural language is not in line with complexity of the “minimum description length” sort. Human understanding in general is pretty good at it, actually—it’s good enough to intuit, with a little work, that gravity really is a simpler explanation than “intelligent falling, ” and that the world is simpler than solipsism that just happens to replicate the world. Although humans may consider verbal complexity “a good heuristic,” humans can still reason well about complexity even when the heuristic doesn’t apply.