182 10 A Mind-World Correspondence Principle Via pursuing to the mind-world correspondence property in this context, I believe we will find that world-paths reflecting successive refinement correspond to mind-paths embodying suc- cessive refinement. This will be found to relate to the hierarchical structures found so frequently in both the physical world and the human mind-brain. Hierarchical structures allow many rel- evant goals to be approached via successive refinement, which I believe is the ultimate reason why hierarchical structures are so common in the human mind-brain. Another next step would be exploring what mind-world correspondence means for the struc- ture and dynamics of a limited-resources intelligence. If an organism O has limited resources and, to be intelligent, needs to make P(0(O, M(A), H(T))|o(O, M(B), T)) high for particular world state-sets A and B, then what’s the organism’s best approach? Arguably, it should represent (/(A) and M(B) internally in such a way that very little compu- tational effort is required for it to transition between (A) and M(B). For instance, this could be done by coding its knowledge in such a way that 1/(A) and M(B) share many common bits; or it could be done in other more complicated ways. If, for instance, A is a subset of B, then it may prove beneficial for the organism to represent M(A) physically as a subset of its representation of M(B). Pursuing this line of thinking, one could likely derive specific properties of an intelligent organism’s internal information-flow, from properties of the environment and goals with respect to which it’s supposed to be intelligent. This would allow us to achieve the holy grail of intelligence theory as I understand it: given a description of an environment and goals, to be able to derive an architectural description for an organism that will display a high level of intelligence relative to those goals, given limited computational resources. While this “holy grail” is ob