Is undecidability a requirement for open-ended evolution (OEE)? Using methods derived from algorithmic complexity theory, we propose robust computational definitions of open-ended evolution and the adaptability of computable dynamical systems. Within this framework, we show that decidability imposes absolute limits on the stable growth of complexity in computable dynamical systems. Conversely, systems that exhibit (strong) open-ended evolution must be undecidable, establishing undecidability as a requirement for such systems. Complexity is assessed in terms of three measures: sophistication, coarse sophistication, and busy beaver logical depth. These three complexity measures assign low complexity values to random (incompressible) objects. As time grows, the stated complexity measures allow for the existence of complex states during the evolution of a computable dynamical system. We show, however, that finding these states involves undecidable computations. We conjecture that for similar complexity measures that assign low complexity values, decidability imposes comparable limits on the stable growth of complexity, and that such behavior is necessary for nontrivial evolutionary systems. We show that the undecidability of adapted states imposes novel and unpredictable behavior on the individuals or populations being modeled. Such behavior is irreducible. Finally, we offer an example of a system, first proposed by Chaitin, that exhibits strong OEE.

In the past decades many definitions of complexity have been proposed. Most of these definitions are based either on Shannon's information theory or on Kolmogorov complexity; these two are often compared, but very few studies integrate the two ideas. In this article we introduce a new measure of complexity that builds on both of these theories. As a demonstration of the concept, the technique is applied to elementary cellular automata and simulations of the self-organization of porphyrin molecules.