(responding by request) Matthew is asserting that a common question in evolution

(responding by request)
Matthew is asserting that a common question in evolutionary theory (evolutionary computation) exposes a flaw rather than an unsettled uncertainty.

This uncertainty is usually stated as “a genome contains a history of sucesses in a vast sequence of the results of massively parallel computations, that for some reason narrows the possibility of meaningful error in development, survival and reproduction, while permissively allowing errors in copying sufficient for identification of innovations in adaptation.”

This argument is rather logical given that the increase in complexity is an increase in tolerance, and complexity is the only substative direction of evolution.

It’s more logical given the intra-cellular computation by supply and demand, intercellular supply and demand, inter organ supply and demand, orgaism’s supply and demand with the evironment, mates, and social cooperators.

So the tendency to think of genetics like deterministic mechanical manufacturing instead of a highly fault tolerant system of cooperation at all scales, persisting a record of successes that can be expressed upon need (think “backward copatibility”) is a common mistake.

As for matematics, this process lke all economic (cooperative) processes, is computationally reducible whith sifficient information th do so, but is very unlikely to be mathematically reducible.

This is why we can measure aggregate change in evolutionary velocity, but little else, just as we are limited to general measures in an economy, and even then only loosely explicable not statistically predictable.

The oversimplification is: “Molecules interact, but life cooperates”. This means physics is mathematical and life is computational. This is why life can do so much more complexity.

Just like us.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski