Weak or not, my objection is valid at the present time. However, I think it is unsolvable. Yes, you can compare two algorithms to see which is more efficient, but you cannot determine whether there is a better algorithm unless you can write a better one yourself.
This leads me back to the basic problem with these 'rules' of Wolfram. The problem is not so much description as it is of creation. It should be noted that while Wolfram believes that such can be done - which is the real test of such a theory - he himself does not claim that he has achieved it.
Then you would be wrong.
It isn't a theoretical difficulty but an engineering difficulty, and engineering difficulties always fall eventually. There have already been toy back-of-the-cocktail-napkin implementation solutions described that just hack what we already know how to do. A really useful solution would have to take a different implementation approach though. "Unofficially" I could say that the very first universal solutions to the problem have already been invented and are being worked on in R&D labs, but I don't need to assert this to prove my point.
Just because a bi-plane can't go to the moon does not mean that traveling to the moon is impossible. It just means that you've limited yourself to looking at an impossible solution.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic I'm talking about, and many of the implied assumptions themselves are incorrect. I've already said that I'm not going to even attempt to explain the full scope of Solomonoff Induction required to make my response to your assertion here obvious, so you are on your own. All I will say is that your confusion stems from a very incomplete understanding of the subject matter, the full theoretical consequences of Solomonoff Induction in particular.
So in short, your assertion is based on multiple false assumptions. Explaining the precise problem will require a lengthy dissertation on Solomonoff Induction that is way beyond the scope of FreeRepublic, so I'm not even going to attempt it. Explaining Solomonoff Induction so that people that don't grok the prerequisite theoretical background have some semblence of understanding makes explaining Kolmogorov complexity, entropy, and all that stuff a walk in the park by comparison, and those topics are already very obviously pushing the boundary of things you can discuss in a forum like this.
This isn't a slight against the posters on this forum, but there is a limit to how far we can go theoretically when a lot of prerequisite theory is missing. Things like Kolmogorov complexity and entropy can be couched in terms that most people can figure out if explained enough times because most people are vaguely familiar with the underlying ideas. Like with relativistic physics or quantum mechanics, once you stray too far from most people's experience/intuition/"common sense" it becomes MUCH harder to explain things without a proper theoretical understanding because the theory starts violating the assumptions most people make.
That is the situation with Solomonoff Induction; the mathematical facts violate a lot of intuition and unless everyone fully understands the underlying mathematics I'd end up spending all my time arguing with people who don't want to believe the mathematics because it violates their intuition regardless of whether or not their intuition is actually incorrect. I don't have time for that on this particular subject area, and experience shows that this is what happens.
I think the discussion got away from the original point of the website on the problems with Kolmogorov complexity. tortoise already noted that he disagreed with objection number one (I expect lots of disagreements among these experts at this level) ... and then somehow we ended up with Solomonoff.
In laygirl's lingo, Solomonoff allows the mathematician to discover the algorithm whereby a string was made.
It is important in A.I. and is rather crucial to determining whether evolution was possible, mathematically speaking. It is also significant in "theories of everything" - whether an algorithm lies at the root of the physical realm, life, etc.