Geometric, or even philosophical?

Do I understand correctly that if we were to attempt to explain Kolmogorov Sophistication to Aristotle, we would say "the sophistication of `x` is the smallest essence over all proper[0] descriptions of x by, first[1] its essence, and then[2] its specific accidents"?

Intuitively, this would make sense, because as glass bead game players we are drawn to (beads whose cane was also formed from)* beads. As Körner would say, the height of distinction for a mathematician is to have, not an eponymous theorem, but an eponymous lemma.

[0] I don't understand what constitutes a proper description here yet, but am currently assuming it has to do with lying on a subsumption frontier, otherwise the trivial model would always be minimal.

[1] I think this has to be noncommutative, for otherwise we'd waste description bits on labelling the accidents? Compare canonical Huffman. (.a Lojban)

[2] see also Linnaeus