5 ms·

> How are you measuring complexity? I think measurements are useful when comparing things in an absolute space (eg. rate all cars by engine power). But complex

> How are you measuring complexity? I think measurements are useful when comparing things in an absolute space (eg. rate all cars by engine power). But complexity is relative; something complex to me is simple to you. A topic might be simple to me because I axiomatically accept a premise which you consider a topic of analysis.

kleer001 6y ago
Hmm, I think that's comparing the complexity of our understanding of the topic and not the complexity of the topic its self which I think is regularly laid out by experts and researchers of said topic. So, you might have a savant belting out absurdly complex fugues on a piano with little to no effort, while a young music student spends two hundred hours understanding the content of that music. The music itself, however, has the same complexity regardless of who's appreciating it. No?
- ggeorgovassilis 6y ago
  Maybe there is an objective, absolute complexity, but I can't find good examples. Building on your example (music), a chord seems complex when you think of it as a sequence of individual notes, but is simple if you think of it as an object in a multi-dimensional space (of which a single note is a trivial instance). The complexity arises from how one looks at the thing and what the conceptual tools available for understanding are.
  - kleer001 6y ago
    Then systems theory and complexity science are things to check out, they're really cool. I won't insult you by linking to a wikipedia article. IMHO complexity boils down to the number of connections in an objects internal parts. But, like most complex things there's lots of discussion. Those two different models you proposed to understand music are two different objects hence two different conceptualizations of the same phenomenon, two different perspectives. So, the old "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." and "There's more than one way to skin a cat." kinda things.

kleer001 6y ago

Hmm, I think that's comparing the complexity of our understanding of the topic and not the complexity of the topic its self which I think is regularly laid out by experts and researchers of said topic. So, you might have a savant belting out absurdly complex fugues on a piano with little to no effort, while a young music student spends two hundred hours understanding the content of that music. The music itself, however, has the same complexity regardless of who's appreciating it. No?

ggeorgovassilis 6y ago
Maybe there is an objective, absolute complexity, but I can't find good examples. Building on your example (music), a chord seems complex when you think of it as a sequence of individual notes, but is simple if you think of it as an object in a multi-dimensional space (of which a single note is a trivial instance). The complexity arises from how one looks at the thing and what the conceptual tools available for understanding are.
- kleer001 6y ago
  Then systems theory and complexity science are things to check out, they're really cool. I won't insult you by linking to a wikipedia article. IMHO complexity boils down to the number of connections in an objects internal parts. But, like most complex things there's lots of discussion. Those two different models you proposed to understand music are two different objects hence two different conceptualizations of the same phenomenon, two different perspectives. So, the old "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." and "There's more than one way to skin a cat." kinda things.