[jabowery]

It's always struck me as rather strange that since the motive for creating any kind of model is to calculate predictions, and that the most general kind of calculation is algorithmic, people use anything but algorithmic probability as the gold standard against which other approaches are compared. The "problems" with algorithmic probability (uncomputability, UTM "choice" etc.) seem to be "the dog ate my homework" excuses. No scientific model is required to prove itself to be the best of all possible models relative to a given set of observations in order to be considered the best current model relative to those observations. No "UTM" chosen on the basis of the observations to be modeled is reasonably considered anything but post-hoc theorizing.