[MD] The freedom allowing discordant mutations and disordered environmental changes.

[Gene M]

> The above statement is why I say we're ALMOST in complete agreement.
> We still need a criterion for saying the system is not failing.  If the
> criterion of the system's not failing is its staying in balance, then, of
> course, balance is
> required for its not failing.
> Craig


Good point. I would say a system is not failing if it is working. It sounds
stupid, but that's what I've got. Say you have an ecosystem. Let's make a
super simple one. Grass-Rabbits-Coyotes. A simple predator prey system. The
system keeps in balance, if there isn't enough grass, rabbits die off until
there is and then it continues, if there are not enough rabbits, some
coyotes will die, returning the balance. If there is an excess of any
foodsource, the next level up will increase and consume it. This is a fairly
static balance. Now let's say a kind of bug is introduced into the system
that eats grass. It has no natural predators in the system and starts to
edge out rabbits by consuming their food source, multiplying rapidly. It
throws the entire system out of balance. This is DQ. The system will either
collapse, or form a new balance, perhaps adding an extra step that makes the
bugs a viable food source.

So I guess the original static balance has been shattered, but the greater
DQ balance remains

Does that make any sense?

-Gene