5. On “Kolmogorov and Chaitin are misused” It’s a fair concern.Chaitin does get thrown around too easily — usually in discussions that don’t need him. But tha

5. On “Kolmogorov and Chaitin are misused” It’s a fair concern.Chaitin does get thrown around too easily — usually in discussions that don’t need him. But that’s not what’s happening here. – Kolmogorov shows that most strings are incompressible. – Chaitin shows that even if you find the simplest representation, you can’t prove it’s minimal. – So any system that “discovers” a concept has no way of knowing it’s found something reusable. That’s the issue. Without confirmation, generalization turns into guesswork. And in high-K environments — open-ended, unstable ones — that guesswork becomes noise. No poetic metaphor about the mystery of meaning here. It’s a formal point about the limits of abstraction recognition under complexity. So no, it’s not a misuse. It’s just the part of the theory that gets quietly ignored because it doesn’t deliver the outcome people are hoping for.