Complexity - The amount of information in a certain volume.
That's not any definition of complexity ever.
Information - Any set of values that can be read from some arrangement of material.
That's not any definition of information ever.
I see your problem. You're using not actual definitions of words.
You're defining information as "something meaningful to humans".
I most certainly did NOT do that.
If you want some citation of a work that agrees with my definition, then we can simply look at the lede of the "Information" article from Wikipedia, which supports both of our definitions (mine is underlined):
It most certainly does NOT do that. Let's look and see why:
"Information (shortened as info or info.) is that which informs, i.e. that from which data and knowledge can be derived (as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts).
In the portion you underlined which you claim supports your non-definition of "any set of values that can be read from some arrangement of material", you ignore the crucial parts you didn't underline, such as "that which informs", that from which data and knowledge can be derived", etc. You are cherry picking out of context sentence fragements without considering the context and the whole.
It doesn't work that way. In your version "+ 4 2 = 2" and "224+=" contain the same information as "2+2 = 4". Clearly that is a nonsensical postion but what logically your incorrect definition of information would lead to.
As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example)
Your arguing against a claim no one but you erronously made about someone else.
At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system."
All arrangements don't produce propogation, further evidence that your incorrect definition isn't an actual definition.
No analogy is perfect, so if you delve deeply enough into the subject of computer engineering you can probably find a flaw in my analogy, but that will only detract from the validity of my analogy, not the validity of my original proposition.
Your analogy wasn't just imperfect, it was demonstrably wrong. You even proved it with your Wikipedia quotes, although I highly doubt you realized that.
Once again, the reason I say this is that a brain has constant complexity on the physical level regardless of what it is being used for.
Demonstrably false. Your wikipedia quotes can be used to prove this also.
The next step in my argument was going to be that, if the creator is using any part of himself to produce the universe, then the complexity is the same
See above.
I think the issue is that you are using not-actual definitions of things apart from any standard or derivative use. You really just don't seem to understand the terms you are using and the implication of the things you are reading.
Seriously, you seem like a smart cookie, but the way you are using "complexity" and "information" are just way way way off.
