Abstract bits sure, 2^4 objects are unable to represent 2^5 objects, simply due to 16!=32
But what does it have to do with'general intelligence' and brute force?
We were originally talking about rna communication.. where does kolmogrov come in? In the data representation in the rna? But what of it when the mechanism that encodes and decodes is unrestricted in its upper bound complexity? If the disparity between the upper bound of memory being encoded and the mechanism encoding it are great enough then that system could 'compress n bits in the general case'
> All you can do is start checking every possible transformation from your assumption starting with the most probable one - the probabilities are based on your knowledge itself.
This just sounds like you're saying every algorithm is brute force but with different possible states due to assumptions
Would you call Euclid's gcd 'brute force with assumptions'? I would argue algorithm is antonym to brute force
> How do you generate the algorithm in the first place?
Ah, I think I see what you're saying.. are you conjecturing the process of evolving conciousness was itself a brute force process?
Where understanding it's underlying process and being able to implement it ourselves, perhaps even more thermodynamically efficient, is inconsequential due to our efforts being only possible by the original conjectured brute force process that allowed us to abstract to such a degree..? This process being the 'assumption' to be appended to the proof?
But this again seems like a philosophical debate.. one of life and negative entropy
How do you define general intelligence? How do you defend the statement that 'intelligence is equivalent to compression.'?
If you would have to consider all of existence as assumption, then a bitwise representation of our own intelligence would be a significantly small subset of the bitwise representation of all things; expressing this would seem to imply some process substantially more efficient than brute forcing every possible state, or luck is real?, or we underestimate the complexity of 'general intelligence' and in actuality the search is ongoing? Or some undiscussed other?