Abstract

The process of evolutionary diversification unfolds in a vast genotypic space of potential outcomes. During the past century, there have been remarkable advances in the development of theory for this diversification, and the theory's success rests, in part, on the scope of its applicability. A great deal of this theory focuses on a relatively small subset of the space of potential genotypes, chosen largely based on historical or contemporary patterns, and then predicts the evolutionary dynamics within this pre-defined set. To what extent can such an approach be pushed to a broader perspective that accounts for the potential open-endedness of evolutionary diversification? There have been a number of significant theoretical developments along these lines but the question of how far such theory can be pushed has not been addressed. Here a theorem is proven demonstrating that, because of the digital nature of inheritance, there are inherent limits on the kinds of questions that can be answered using such an approach. In particular, even in extremely simple evolutionary systems, a complete theory accounting for the potential open-endedness of evolution is unattainable unless evolution is progressive. The theorem is closely related to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and to the halting problem from computability theory.

Highlights

  • Much of evolutionary theory is, in an important sense, fundamentally historical

  • The process of evolutionary diversification unfolds in a vast genotypic space of potential outcomes, and explores some parts of this space and not others

  • The above theorem illustrates that there is an interesting connection between this question and analyses from computability theory and mathematical logic

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Much of evolutionary theory is, in an important sense, fundamentally historical. The process of evolutionary diversification unfolds in a vast genotypic space of potential outcomes, and explores some parts of this space and not others. A great deal of current theory restricts attention to a relatively small subset of this space, chosen largely based on historical or contemporary patterns, and predicts evolutionary dynamics This can work well for making short-term predictions, it must fail once evolution gives rise to genuinely novel genotypes lying outside this predefined set [1]. More significantly, I wish to consider whether a push towards a predictive theory that embraces the potential open-endedness of evolution is likely to face additional obstacles, over and above those faced by closed models of evolution Put another way, I ask the question: to what extent is the development of a predictive, open-ended evolutionary theory possible?.

A MOTIVATING EXAMPLE
STATEMENT AND PROOF OF THEOREM
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.