Hey all, apologies for the delayed response. I was on a flight, then had guests, then had to make some rapid decisions involving actual real-world complexity (the kind that is not easily tokenized). I’ve now had time to read through the thread properly, and I appreciate the range of engagement—even the sharp-edged stuff. Below, I’ve gathered a set of structured responses to the main critique clusters that came up.
It’s a fair concern.Chaitin does get thrown around too easily — usually in discussions that don’t need him.
But that’s not what’s happening here.
– Kolmogorov shows that most strings are incompressible. – Chaitin shows that even if you find the simplest representation, you can’t prove it’s minimal. – So any system that “discovers” a concept has no way of knowing it’s found something reusable.
That’s the issue. Without confirmation, generalization turns into guesswork. And in high-K environments — open-ended, unstable ones — that guesswork becomes noise. No poetic metaphor about the mystery of meaning here. It’s a formal point about the limits of abstraction recognition under complexity.
So no, it’s not a misuse. It’s just the part of the theory that gets quietly ignored because it doesn’t deliver the outcome people are hoping for.