Advertisement

Philosophical Applications of Kolmogorov’s Complexity Measure

  • Itzhak Gilboa
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)

Abstract

The basic question of how people choose theories to explain observations has justifiably drawn much attention and received numerous and various possible answers. In particular, it will certainly not be a shockingly new idea to suggest that people opt for the simplest possible theory, i.e., the simplest theory out of those that are compatible with accumulated evidence. (As an explicitly descriptive theory this idea dates back to Wittgenstein (1922) at the latest, while with a slightly more normative flavor it is often attributed to William of Occam —see, e.g., Russell (1945, pp. 468–473), and Sober (1975) for additional references.)

Keywords

Scientific Theory Turing Machine Choice Function Complexity Measure Simple Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dubins, L. E. and L. J. Savage (1965), How to Gamble if You Must, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1923), “Uber die Aufgabe der Physik und die Andwednung des Grundsatze der Einfachstheit,” Kant-Studien, 28, 90–107.Google Scholar
  3. de Finetti, B. (1949), “Sull Impostazione Assiomatica del Calcolo delle Probabilita,” Annali Triestini, 19, 29–81.Google Scholar
  4. de Finetti, B. (1950), “Aggiunta alla Nota sull’ Assiomatica della Probabilita,” Annali Triestini, 20, 5–22.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, T. L. (1973), Theories of Probability, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gilboa, I. and D. Schmeidler (1989), “Infinite Histories and Steady Orbits in Repeated Games,” forthcoming in Games and Economic Behavior.Google Scholar
  7. Goodman, N. (1965), Fact. Fiction and Forecast, 2nd edition, Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill.Google Scholar
  8. Kolmogorov, A. (1963), “On Tables of Random Numbers,” Sankhya Ser. A, 369–376.Google Scholar
  9. Kolmogorov, A. (1965), “Three Approaches to the Quantitative Definition of Information,” Problems of Information Transmission (translated from Problemy Peredaci Informacii), 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  10. Loveland, D. W. (1969), “A Variant of the Kolmogorov Concept of Complexity,” Information and Control, 15, 510–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin-Lof, P. (1966), “The Definition of Random Sequences,” Information and Control, 9, 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pager, D. (1969), “On a Problem of Finding Minimal Programs for Tables,” Information and Control, 14, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Popper, K. R. (1934), Logik der Forschung; English edition (1958), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson and Co. Reprinted ( 1961 ), New York: Science Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Russel, B. (1945), A History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  15. Sober, E. (1975), Simplicity, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Suppe, F. (1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories (edited with a critical introduction by F. Suppe), Urbana, Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  17. Turing, A. M. (1956), “Can a Machine Think?”, in The World of Mathematics, Vol. IV, 2099–2123, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Wittgenstein, L. (1922), Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; fifth impression, 1951.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Itzhak Gilboa
    • 1
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations