Complexity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So perhaps you could phrase it in such a way as to encompass both options, thus bringing us closer to an all encompassing set of criteria.



Okay, maybe you don't think it counts, but that is an opinion and not a fact. I personally can find many differences between the structure {7+7} and the structure {14} . A pretty simple difference is, they take a different number of bits to represent in binary code. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that is truly equivalent with a system is itself, and only at the given moment of comparison.

---

So then, count reduncdant systems. THat's your interpretation of "Complexity". Mine rules out redundant systems, because you can achieve the same result or goal with something different, but equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So then, count reduncdant systems. THat's your interpretation of "Complexity". Mine rules out redundant systems, because you can achieve the same result or goal with something different, but equivalent.

---

But thats not always the case. Why do you think redundancy is built into complex equipment? True redundancy is impossible, anyway. If two things are exactly equal, they can only be the same thing, i.e. there isn't really two things to be redundant.

Oh, I see what you mean now.

Yea, that isn't redundancy-- Just two systems that yield the same result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So perhaps you could phrase it in such a way as to encompass both options, thus bringing us closer to an all encompassing set of criteria.

---

I already stated probably the only idea general enough to apply to all situations thus far presented in this thread in my first post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I already stated probably the only idea general enough to apply to all situations thus far presented in this thread in my first post.

---

It is a good start, but I don't think your first post is specific enough. How do you judge the entropy of an impressionist painting, for instance; let alone compare it to the entropy of a skyscraper or a single celled organism? Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily looking for one universal scale by which to compare all structures, but a set of scales that can come closer to comparing all structures. Think of it as the concept of patterns becoming aware of itself. What patterns do patterns make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Oh, I see what you mean now.

Yea, that isn't redundancy-- Just two systems that yield the same result.

---

I don't understand; you say "that isn't redundancy", then give a pretty accurate definition of redundancy. What is it about 7+7=14 and 14=14 that distinguishes them from "Just two systems that yield the same result"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't understand; you say "that isn't redundancy", then give a pretty accurate definition of redundancy. What is it about 7+7=14 and 14=14 that distinguishes them from "Just two systems that yield the same result"?

---

No, i said they WERE just two systems that give the same result.

I say complexity is something that has more elements than something else. A rock, is less complex than 400,000 rocks piled up in a pyramid. Systems of redundancy are just that. 7+7-7+7=14 is more complex than 14=14. It has more terms/elements. More complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It is a good start, but I don't think your first post is specific enough. How do you judge the entropy of an impressionist painting, for instance; let alone compare it to the entropy of a skyscraper or a single celled organism?

---

How do you know the usual definition of entropy, that is, the one with logs and a Boltzmann constant, wouldn't work for a painting? It isn't obvious that it shouldn't work. You haven't proven that a direct computation of entropy wouldn't work.

It makes sense that it might work. For example, a painting showing human figures has less colour variation than random paint splatters, which means more orderly molecular structure, which means lower entropy. So you can't just rule out a pure entropy calculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

How do you know the usual definition of entropy, that is, the one with logs and a Boltzmann constant, wouldn't work for a painting? It isn't obvious that it shouldn't work. You haven't proven that a direct computation of entropy wouldn't work.

It makes sense that it might work. For example, a painting showing human figures has less colour variation than random paint splatters, which means more orderly molecular structure, which means lower entropy. So you can't just rule out a pure entropy calculation.

---

Is color composition the only way to judge a painting? There's layering, contrast, stroke density, effectiveness and degree of emotional response; not to mention the physical composition of the pigments and canvas used. Is raw sienna more complex than burnt sienna since burnt sienna is partially broken down, or is burnt sienna more complex because it required a longer process to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Is color composition the only way to judge a painting? There's layering, contrast, stroke density, effectiveness and degree of emotional response; not to mention the physical composition of the pigments and canvas used. Is raw sienna more complex than burnt sienna since burnt sienna is partially broken down, or is burnt sienna more complex because it required a longer process to make?

---

Ok, so here's a slight modification to my idea: Calculate complexity as 1/exp(dS), where dS is the total change in entropy required to produce the object, from the beginning of the universe to completion. The exp is in there to account for the fact that we want negative change in entropy to give large complexity, and positive change in entropy to give small complexity. Check the numbers, it works.

Or completelly ignore me, that's cool...*sadface*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Or completelly ignore me, that's cool...*sadface*

---

Your pyramid of rocks has less entropy than one big rock, so that's included in my idea.

Yey!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Ok, so here's a slight modification to my idea: Calculate complexity as 1/exp(dS), where dS is the total change in entropy required to produce the object, from the beginning of the universe to completion. The exp is in there to account for the fact that we want negative change in entropy to give large complexity, and positive change in entropy to give small complexity. Check the numbers, it works.

---

I think this is getting better, but what we really need is something that works for existing states. How can one really judge the changes something has gone through from the beginning of the universe? Its impossible. Do you think its possible to look at two structures as they are in the moment without knowing their history and judge which is more complex?