The number of bits required to express something in English is far from the information-theoretic complexity of the thing. “The woman over there is a witch; she did it.”
Depends on your choice of Universal Turing Machine. You can choose a human, which is a valid universal turing machine, and then the kolmogorov complexity is equal.
Hm, good point. I think there might still be a way to save the concept that witches are more complex than electromagnetism, though.
You need a very large overhead for a human. This overhead contains some of the complexity of “witch” but comparatively less of the complexity of “electromagnetism”. So Complexity(human)+Complexity(“witch”, context=human) is an upper bound on the “inherent complexity” of “witch”, and the latter term alone doesn’t mean as much.
01000110001111010110110101100001
Source
The number of bits required to express something in English is far from the information-theoretic complexity of the thing. “The woman over there is a witch; she did it.”
Depends on your choice of Universal Turing Machine. You can choose a human, which is a valid universal turing machine, and then the kolmogorov complexity is equal.
Hm, good point. I think there might still be a way to save the concept that witches are more complex than electromagnetism, though.
You need a very large overhead for a human. This overhead contains some of the complexity of “witch” but comparatively less of the complexity of “electromagnetism”. So Complexity(human)+Complexity(“witch”, context=human) is an upper bound on the “inherent complexity” of “witch”, and the latter term alone doesn’t mean as much.
But where do we get Complexity(human)?