« The Simple Theory of Counterfactuals | Main | Computation, Laws and Supervenience »

September 01, 2013



I confess this is far beyond my educational grounding and yet I read such things like I study cuneiform with my fingertips, like braille. In hopes something will enter and inform me.

However, as there is a typographical infelicity in an earlier section:

Some are stronger, more informative than others. These virtues compete: An uninformative system can be very simple, an systemized compendium of miscellaneous information can be very informative. - See more at: http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2013/09/the-computational-theory-of-natural-laws.html#sthash.A7wfCl0D.dpuf

where one suspects that it is meant to read: " . . . a systematized . . . "

one wonders, in one's ignorance, if the word "worlds" is meant to be read as "words", which seems to be more coherent in the suggested "semantic" distinction, as in:

Strength-2 is a semantic property: we measure it by counting worlds. If A2 is true at every world at which A1 is true, but not vice versa then A1 is more informative than A2. The idea is that the fewer worlds at which a sentence is true the more informative it is. - See more at: http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2013/09/the-computational-theory-of-natural-laws.html#sthash.67iV5R6t.dpuf

Counting "worlds"? Not counting words?

Forgive if I have offended.

The comments to this entry are closed.