This is from an article from "Quantum Frontiers."(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The fundamental concept here is Kolmogorov complexity and its connection to randomness/predictability. A sequence of data bits like:

10011010101101001110100001011010011101010111010100011010110111011110

has higher complexity (and hence looks more random/less predictable) than the sequence:

10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010

So is everyone agreed that this is the proper definition of complexity; ie the ability to condense raw data to a simple code.

Why isn't the ability of a function to integrate other functions a measure of complexity? A car has many different parts, many different systems, as does a human being. Why aren't these systems regarded as complex? Is there a distinction to be drawn between randomness and complexity?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# The theory of everything help

Loading...

Similar Threads - theory everything help | Date |
---|---|

B Is cosmopsychism theory just babble copied from The Force? | Feb 10, 2018 |

Equation for theory of everything | Apr 4, 2010 |

Queston On The Theory Of Everything | Apr 1, 2008 |

The Theory Of Everything | Mar 28, 2008 |

Stephen Hawking's Theory of Everything and Imaginary Time | Dec 20, 2006 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**