I would really like to see some solid estimates here, not just the usual hand-waving. Maybe someone better qualified can critique the following.

By "a computer program to simulate Maxwell's equations" EY presumably means a linear PDE solver for initial boundary value problems. The same general type of code should be able to handle the Schroedinger equation. There are a number of those available online, most written in Fortran or C, with the relevant code size about a megabyte. The Kolmogorov complexity of a solution produced by such a solver is pr... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

.I also cannot resist noting, yet again, that all interpretation of QM that rely on solving the Schrodinger equation have exactly the same complexity, as estimated above, and so cannot be distinguished by the Occam's razor.

That way of formalizing Occam's razor, anyway.

1XiXiDu8y I also cannot resist noting, yet again, that all interpretation of QM that rely on solving the Schrodinger equation have exactly the same complexity, as estimated above, and so cannot be distinguished by the Occam's razor. This applies, in particular, to MWI vs Copenhagen. Very interesting comment, upvoted. I can't tell that what you are saying makes sense but I welcome and endorse your examination and attempt to reduce the formalization of Occam's razor to practice.

[SEQ RERUN] Occam's Razor

by MinibearRex 8y9th Sep 20117 comments

5


Today's post, Occam's Razor was originally published on 26 September 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

To a human, Thor feels like a simpler explanation for lightning than Maxwell's equations, but that is because we don't see the full complexity of an intelligent mind. However, if you try to write a computer program to simulate Thor and a computer program to simulate Maxwell's equations, one will be much easier to accomplish. This is how the complexity of a hypothesis is measured in the formalisms of Occam's Razor.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Einstein's Arrogance, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.