Scott defends his dismissal of the Substack religion debate against charges of hypocrisy and engages with technical objections about Kolmogorov complexity, arguing that 'mind without limits' isn't actually simple and that explaining multiple anomalies with God is like explaining Napoleon's success with aliens. Longer summary

Scott responds to comments on his previous post about why he's avoiding the Substack religion debate. He addresses accusations of hypocrisy regarding his treatment of 'trapped priors' versus his current dismissal of religious arguments, clarifies his position on Kolmogorov complexity and why 'mind without limits' isn't actually simple, and debates with Matthew Adelstein about whether God is a good explanation for multiple features of the world. The post includes detailed technical discussions about complexity theory, the difference between English descriptions and computational specifications, and why positing God is different from theories like simulation hypothesis or AI. Shorter summary