There’s no general way to apply SI to answer a bounded question with a sensible bounded answer. Hence, when you say “you can make your stable of hypotheses infinitely large”, this is misleading: programs aren’t hypotheses, or explanations, in the normal sense of the word, for almost all of the questions we’d like to understand
And it’s also unclear, to say the least , that the criterion that an SI uses to prefer and discard hypotheses/programmes actually is a probability, despite being labelled as such.
And it’s also unclear, to say the least , that the criterion that an SI uses to prefer and discard hypotheses/programmes actually is a probability, despite being labelled as such.