[hc]

the reason there isn't a guaranteed compressor is that a legitimate compressor has to be injective, and there isn't an injective function from, say, {0,1}^[n] to {0,1}^[m] where m<n. in contrast, there are many guaranteed "decompressors," if by a decompressor you mean an invertible function that expands the length of a string.

you seem to contradict yourself a bit, first you agree that an algorithm could take "lolz that suckz" and produce "one of" the original thoughts that got transcribed as it, then you say there "simply isn't any sort of mapping" from "fuzzy thoughts" (sentences produced by transcribing thoughts?) to coherent ones. but obviously there are many such mappings, it's just that they aren't guaranteed to produce the same thought the author of the "fuzzy thought" had when he wrote down what he was thinking.

now, what is the actual cause for fear? is it the idea that we might someday be able to communicate without taking too much effort (what you say is impossible), or that people with nothing going on between their ears will be able to produce computer-mediated output that is indistinguishable from coherent thought? i think the latter is more cause for concern/more interesting but i dont think anything youve said really addresses it. tbh i also dont think your brief discussion of information theory does much in the way of arguing against the former either. (your argument could be adapted to show that morse code is impossible, because messages are shorter in morse code than they would be in a straightforward ternary ascii encoding. but actually, it's just that the messages we typically wish to send are generally shorter.)

[jerf]

You ability to not once, but twice, reiterate what I said while simultaneously declaring something else entirely as what I got wrong is quite impressive. I don't think I care to try to engage any further with someone who does that.

[hc]

upvoted for making me laugh