"I think what is really needed is an objective measure of
complexity that isn't associated with such things as functionality,
value, meaning, purpose etc. The term I like is organized complexity.
This certainly carries with it an implication of functionality and
purpose."
Good post -- food for thought. I'll toss in my 2c worth.
We all will agree (I think) that a "fish" is less complex
than a "Gish." (reference to my friend Dr. Gish's book).
But what MEASURE is applied to say this?
Kelvin writes:"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it
in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager
and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science."
So I want to know a measure.
Assume Dr. Gish weighs 150 pounds. Consider five objects:
1. Dr. Gish
2. A dolphin
3. A motorcycle
4. A mass of protozoa
5. A tub of seawater
Assume all five objects weigh the same. They all have the same
number of elemental particles making them up -- about 10^30 or so.
Now we can SPECIFY EXACTLY each of the five objects ONLY by
specifying exactle each of the positions and velocities of each of
the 10^30 elemental particles. Six measurements for each, relative to
an XYZ grid. 6 x 10^30 measurements in all -- for each one.
But it takes exactly the same number of measurements to specify
each one! Are they therefore all of the same "specified complexity?"
I think not. But I do have a measure which suggests that!
If I knew an anser to all this, I'd certainly tell somebody.
But the answer -- for me -- must be quantitative. It must
specify a procedure for measure. I've never seen one.
Burgy