What are appropriate analysis tools for interrogating self-modifying, evolving, open systems?

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• What are effective tools and modelling paradigms for implementing and running (simulations of) self-modifying open systems?question0.819
  Organizing question for §6.2 on computational tools.
• What are appropriate mathematical formalisms and computational tools for modelling a self-modifying system that changes its own rules, and is open to its environment?question0.812
  Organizing question for §6 on tools for modelling self-referential systems.
• What are the appropriate boundaries for analyzing a programming system?question0.757
  Raised via Java/Eclipse example; boundaries significantly affect analysis and are a design choice (minimal vs. realistic systems).
• Any system that persists must minimise surprisal, thereby gathering evidence for its own generative model.quote0.731
  Opening sentence defining self-evidencing.
• Any system that persists must minimise surprisal, thereby gathering evidence for its own generative model, a process known as self-evidencing.claim0.729
  Foundational claim of the paper, defining self-evidencing.
• Viewing the system as a collection of applications is a valid and useful approach.claim0.723
  Foundational assumption for the pattern language.
• A system-agnostic approach evaluating observable response patterns without reference to substrate offers the best roadmap for empirically fruitful unification.claim0.721
  Core argumentative position: sentience assessment should focus on behavior, not substrate composition; extends to AI and robotic systems.
• Most users will want to restructure tools for new situations they encounterclaim0.720
  Kay's foundational claim motivating the entire Playground design: personalization is inevitable and should be enabled.