# why not high complexity?

```O O O OO O      hi.
O      O
OOOO OO        i've just stumbled upon this discussion - i'm
OO       O      trying to catch up. i have a question/comment -
OO OOO OO      i'm wondering if it's been raised before - and
O OOO O  O      which message i should jump forward to to find
O O     O
O   OO OO      Max Tegmark suggests that ".. all mathematical
O O  OOOO      structures are a priori given equal statistical
OO    OO O      weight" and Jurgen Schmidhuber counters that
O  O  OOO      "there is no way of assigning nonvanishing
OOO O        probability to all (infinitely many)
OO  OOOOO       mathematical structures" and he then goes on
O          (i think) to assign a weighting based upon
OO   OOO      time-complexity.
O OO O   O
O O  OOO        i have to say i find Tegmark's argument more
OOOOOO   O      persuasive - i can't see why the great
O  OOOOO      programmer should be worried about runtime.
O OOOOO OO      furthermore, i feel intuitively that the
O O       universes ought to have equal weight.
OOOOO O
OO   OO        such a sort of probability can be defined, of
O  O O      course, by taking the limit as finite subsets
OOOOOOOO O      approach the full infinite set. as long as we
O    O OOO      get the same answer regardless of the order in
O O     O       which we grow the subset, the limit can be said
OOO O O O       to be defined.
O O O O
O     O O       the problem is - such a view predicts that we
O  O OO         live in a universe of high Kolmogorov complexity
OO   OO O       - not low complexity.
O  O
OOOOO OO O      but i don't see why this is such a surprise
O O            - living in such a universe, we ought to see
OO OO O      events occur which we cannot effectively
O OOO  O O      predict. but that is exactly what we do see.
OOOO
OO   O O O      thanks.
O O O
OOOOOOO
OOO           -k```
```
```