Innovation

[Dallas]

By open-ended innovation do you mean that all possible innovations
could be achieved in the system? In a quarantined system, there may
be states that can't be revisited without starting the evolutionary
process over again. As an example, the optical rotation of some
biological molecules could have started either way, but one started in
a particular direction, evolutionary processes can't easily reverse
that decision.

It is not real clear what you are trying to prove. I assume by
quarantine you don't mean that the selection drivers for evolution
can't change from the outside.

[bkl...@gmail.com]

Open-ended – If the process continues without reaching an obvious
maximum level of organized complexity, it qualifies as "Open-ended".
This criterion can be met in a demonstration if it produces a few
innovations and is not restricted from producing more. (Capability to
reach "all possible innovations" not required.)

> I assume by quarantine you don't mean that the
> selection drivers for evolution can't change from the outside.

Right, they can change, but not in any way that conveys instructions.
Random changes are OK.

[Bud]

I am sorry, perhaps I just do not understand your usage. But it seems
to me that you have just replaced one undefined term, "open-ended"
with another, "maximum level of organized complexity". The latter
sounds like it should have a mathematical meaning, but it is not clear
what it is, at least not to me. Could you provide a definition, and
perhaps an example of how to test for the condition?

[bkl...@gmail.com]

Mathematically, I dunno. The ID proponent William Dembski says 500
bits is a cutoff -- darwinian evolution cannot conceivable write a
program longer than that, he says. [Me, I'm agnostic.] But of course,
computers can spew out 500 bits in a flash, so more criteria are
needed. Bud, these are hard questions. That's why I am seeking help
from Innocentive and their solvers.