That would be interesting. I’d like to contribute if I can.
A few comments on your post at PT:
- If I have to choose, ASC is preferable to CSI because at least the math is correct.
- I agree that ASC is not useful for analyzing evolution, at least not in in terms of pure quantity. Extreme large or small amounts of ASC cannot describe a living thing: too simple (a crystal) and it is not alive, too random and it cannot be evolved (I think). What matters is the right amount of information relative to fitness in a given environment.
- You touch on “complexity of description” not necessarily being related to fitness, which is correct. ASC is built around the concept of a Universal Turing Machine (UTM) with random input. We cannot guarantee a shorter coding for random input, BUT there may exist coding schemes where shorter (or optimal) coding is possible. We could hypothesize a Biochemical Turing Machine (BTM) that incorporates the laws of chemistry. I don’t think this is useful, I’m only suggesting that it should be true.
- I agree that variability in the population is necessary part of any description. Conservation of ASC can only hold with respect to a single genotype.