panspermia and intellectual property

[old.johns]

I'm interested in this discussion, as I am about to complete some work
that might be eligible. But I have a couple of questions.

1. I'm not sure how the *transfer of intellectual property* would
work in this case. I have a logical argument, which includes a number
of mathematical proofs. What would selling it mean? Would I still be
recognized as the author? Would I be able to publish it? Post it on
my web site?

2. It's puzzling that a group supporting panspermia would pose this
particular challenge. As I understand the position, it entails that
there cannot be evolutionary innovation in a quarantined system. Thus
the challenge is impossible, from the seeker's point of view. Is this
meant as a kind of test of the seeker's viewpoint?

[Keith C]

Johns,
It is my impression that the 'challenge' is one of those no-win
situations in
which the other party will never admit defeat.
An interesting example is Alfred Russel Wallace's attempt to convince
some
flat earth believers that the world was round.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8F-PGJKgFvwC&pg=PA497&dq=welney&lr=&ei=hTWJSPCnI6fujAHNst26Cw
If link does not work properly, essay title is 'Is the world round?'
and starts on page 497 of "The Eclectic Magazine" for 1870.

[bkl...@gmail.com]

This challenge is to design a suitable test for OEEI-QS. (Once the
test is designed, the successful demonstration is contemplated to have
a larger prize.) The intellectual property transfer language from
Innocentive pertains mainly to narrower projects, like polymers with
specific properties. But if your idea needs legal protection, you may
need to go another route. Of course you would be recognized as the
author in any case.

In the strong version of panspermia, OEEI-QS is considered
forbiddingly unlikely. (This means that the strong version of
panspermia qualifies as science by Popper's definition, since its
foundational assumption can be falsified.) A successful demonstration
of OEEI-QS would falsify it. I am open to any outcome that is
supported by good evidence. Meanwhile, as long as the issue remains
open, I want to bring attention to it. I welcome discussion, from all
recent respondents, of that issue.

On Jul 24, 5:54 pm, "old.johns" <old.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[old.johns]

Thanks for your reply. To lay my cards on the table, I have a set of
limitative results concerning spontaneous self-organization in
dynamical systems of a certain type, namely ones whose laws are
causally local and symmetric in space and time. For simplicity,
however, the theorems are framed in the context of cellular automata.
The main results are roughly that:

1. In such a dynamical system, "irregular" (non-self-similar)
structures have high information content
2. For any dynamical system, structures with high info. content
cannot be produced much more readily there than in a completely random
system of the same size.

(These results only hold, of course, for closed or "quarantined"
systems with a random initial state.)

From your words:

> The intellectual property transfer language from
> Innocentive pertains mainly to narrower projects, like polymers with
> specific properties.

I infer that there could be no transfer of such a collection of
theorems. I've never heard of anyone selling a theorem! Can you
confirm this?

I realize that these theorems, if correct, achieve the opposite of the
task set. But you do mention that such work might qualify for the
prize anyway. The language of the theorems is rather different from
yours, on the other hand, as I can do nothing with the (rather vague)
concept of "innovation". It does seem to me that the examples of
innovation you cite all require irregular structures (in my sense) so
that crystals for example aren't innovations. In that case, the
(opposite of the) result you seek would be a consequence of my
theorems.

> In the strong version of panspermia, OEEI-QS is considered
> forbiddingly unlikely.

Right. Not impossible, but very unlikely, having something like the
probability of the object being assembled by a purely random process.
We (and Kurt Goedel) agree on that.

If you think my paper might be of interest to you, then I can send
it. At the least it's always a pleasure to discuss things with
someone who might be sympathetic.