Functional Information (again)

OK Bill, what the FI of the letter “E”?.

Next, the FI of “Peach”. “Pear”, and “Banana”?


I originally asked about a complexity metric.

It now looks as if you are examining the complexity of additional assumptions, and not the complexity of the originally specified sequences of letters.


This is right but with the tool provided by Hazen and Szostak you can calculate the system complexity by simply eliminating the misspellings. The number of bits will only nominally change.

The reason I questioned you on this, is that “system complexity” has no meaning as far as I can tell. Only when you define a complexity metric, can it begin to have a meaning.

So now you talk about “misspellings”. The problem, as originally stated by you in post 89 above, did not mention that the spellings were relevant.

Generally speaking. “complexity” does not mean anything. People are usually talking about complexity relative to their unstated assumptions. And it is difficult to have a discussion based on unstated assumptions.


You are making a challenging argument here as you are declaring a frequently used word in the english language meaningless. Even more challenging is that the word has now been defined in a few credible scientific papers so now we can measure it.

Wating, @colewd