https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.5434/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17581426urn:hackerpapers:mention:0912.5434:17581426Sat, 21 Jul 2018 09:37:07 GMT<p>&gt; Honestly I haven&#x27;t seen attempts at making this process more rigorous, when applied to physics. Marcus Hutter has expressed this idea quite well ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.5434 ) arguing that (a) smaller/simpler theories have more predictive power and (b) the &quot;size&quot; of a theory includes the complexity of its equations and the parameters needed to specify some result. The latter is important because some theories trade off between these two: e.g. a multiverse theory might have simple equations (&quot;every possibility happens somewhere&quot;) but require very precise &quot;coordinates&quot; to pin-point the…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.5434/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.IThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10547101urn:hackerpapers:mention:0912.5434:10547101Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:31:27 GMT<p>One thing to keep in mind with ideas like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is their predictive power. Once a &quot;theory of everything&quot; describes what could have been as well as what is, you end up needing another theory to distinguish between the two [1]. For example, Champernowne&#x27;s constant contains every number in its decimal expansion, and hence contains a complete description of our universe, all of the true laws of Physics and the outcome of every random quantum effect. However, it&#x27;s not a very satisfactory &quot;theory of everything&quot;, since it makes no predictions. (Note that I could have…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.5434/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.IT