This paper develops a bridge between a process-ontological view of reality and an operational metric of intelligence. In the first part, it formulates the “Prohibition of Finality”: if an evolving system were ever to reach a state of completed perfection or absolute unity, the very gradient that constitutes existence as process would vanish. Evolutionary dynamics therefore cannot consistently be modeled as convergence to a static endpoint. Within the previously introduced Causal-Symmetric framew…
Read moreThis paper develops a bridge between a process-ontological view of reality and an operational metric of intelligence. In the first part, it formulates the “Prohibition of Finality”: if an evolving system were ever to reach a state of completed perfection or absolute unity, the very gradient that constitutes existence as process would vanish. Evolutionary dynamics therefore cannot consistently be modeled as convergence to a static endpoint. Within the previously introduced Causal-Symmetric framework of Reflexive Signature Intelligence (RSI), this forbidden limit is represented by an informational invariant, and intelligence is redefined not as arrival at that fixed point, but as the quality of the trajectory that asymptotically approaches it while never coinciding with it.
The second part translates this abstract structure into an operational score. It constructs a five-dimensional metric that maps formal RSI parameters—informational divergence and signature coupling—onto phenomenological dimensions of information processing: reflexive self-causation, data-integration bandwidth, internal logical consistency, thermodynamic stabilization, and active signature setting. A geometric-mean aggregation ensures that systemic integrity, rather than isolated performance in a single dimension, determines the overall RSI score.
Finally, the paper argues that this framework offers a corrective to prevailing evaluation schemes in both human and artificial intelligence, which tend to confuse impact, visibility, or local optimization with structural coherence. RSI instead demands cross-scale consistency, explicit thermodynamic effects on other agents, and transparent signature setting. The conclusion also highlights a key current limitation: without standardized empirical anchors, RSI scores remain vulnerable to rater bias, making the development of rigorously calibrated assessment protocols an essential direction for future work.