Using this definition, everything containing the same number of atoms would be equally complex; you have to specify where each atom is.
Not really. You can describe a diamond of pure carbon-12 at 0 K with much less information than that. (But IAWYC—there should be some measure of ‘complexity I care about’ by which music would rank higher than both silence (zero information-theoretical complexity) and white noise (maximum complexity).)
But IAWYC—there should be some measure of ‘complexity I care about’ by which music would rank higher than both silence (zero information-theoretical complexity) and white noise (maximum complexity).
How about the measures ‘sophistication’ or ‘logical depth’? Alternately, you could take a Schmidhuber tack and define interestingness as the derivative of compression rate.
Not really. You can describe a diamond of pure carbon-12 at 0 K with much less information than that. (But IAWYC—there should be some measure of ‘complexity I care about’ by which music would rank higher than both silence (zero information-theoretical complexity) and white noise (maximum complexity).)
How about the measures ‘sophistication’ or ‘logical depth’? Alternately, you could take a Schmidhuber tack and define interestingness as the derivative of compression rate.