Rereading the thread, I can appreciate your intention to say that. The terminology is difficult. When I said I was having a mental block, I was not being sarcastic.
1 Like
How would that be any different than any other quantum process “choosing”? There are random number generators that already use quantum processes:
According to your definition earlier, truly random processes aren’t random. You seem to be twisted into logical knots.
I didn’t think you were being sarcastic. I tried to come up with a scenario that might allow you to get around that block.
In science, randomness is an empirical statement based on scientific models. We first ask what “true” randomness would look like in a given system (e.g. Gaussian curve). We then measure that system and see if it is statistically distinguishable from what we would expect to see from true randomness. If the model and observations are indistinguishable, then the system is deemed to be random in the same way that all other conclusions are reached in science (i.e. tentatively).
If an AI or quantum computer (QC) produced a large set of numbers that did not fit a random model then we would say that the AI/QC is not producing a random set of numbers. We would change the program until it did produce something approaching randomness.
1 Like
It would be the AI making the choice as a conscious entity. This is a specific parameter. Random number generators being programmed to generate a result based on an apparently undetermined process, isn’t choosing.
A random process that doesn’t result in a set of outcomes that aggregate towards uniformity would be a higher form of randomness.
More progress might be made faster by working your way through: Random Number Generators―Principles and Practices: A Guide for Engineers and Programmers 1st Edition .
1 Like
If those choices did not fit a random distribution, then we would conclude that they were not randomly chosen.
Or it would be non-random.
2 Likes
It’s hard to judge intention. The numbers could be chosen randomly or without purpose.
There could be random biases as well. Kind of like a network of factors randomly interacting and influencing the outcome.
I think I might be able to appreciate where @heymike3 has a hang up. It’s difficult (for me too anyway - if indeed this is where Mike’s at too), to conceptualize true randomness (as in … philosophically ‘random’ all the way down! so to speak). Because to be 100% random in that way is to deny it can have any cause at all - since the moment you introduce a cause - then … it isn’t truly random any more, right? And I know that ‘causes’ or ‘uncaused cause’ or whatever … those are all concepts that you’re on about all the time, Mike - sort of a ‘ground zero’ for your enthusiastic attentions here - right up there with ‘infinity’, right? 
But anyway - on the ‘randomness’ bit (at least in my version of understanding)…
Quantum stuff does a pretty good job of shuffling any ‘causes’ - at least well outside of our observational reach, if not out the door entirely even (whatever that could possibly mean - it’s beyond me too). But it doesn’t mean we don’t know - with quite a bit of confidence - what ‘randomness’ looks like - even all the so-called ‘fake’ or ‘pseudo-’ kinds that you think should look different somehow. We’ve already had a whole lot of access to randomness in very low-tech ways (coin flipping) and indeed just from life itself (record the last numberical digits of the license plates that go by you at some given point on a road.) There is nothing at all random about any of those particular cars going to their highly intended and planned destinations at that location and time … and yet as far as you are concerned, those digits you record are going to be effectively random. And by effectively - I mean indistinguishable from “truly” random things. Shoot - I could even supply you with a short string of numerical digits: 3 8 7 8 5 4 and you have no way whatsoever of knowing whether I pulled those out of my head (nearly as ‘opposite of random’ as one could think) or whether I did something fancier or higher tech or of a more ‘coin flipping’ nature to come up with those digits! The string is simply too short to yield to any analysis on its actual ‘randomness’. Granted - a much longer string, and we can begin to look with more confidence for an analysis of how truly random it may or may not be. But only because we already have a ‘baseline’ for what true randomness at least looks like. And we have access to all of this not because somebody has finally defeated our philosophical quandary of proving that something is or isn’t “random” all the way down, but only because we have experience with the daily appearance of random, even when [if] it isn’t really ontologically random in our impossibly robust sense. Coin flips aren’t really (in the philosophically robust sense) random - in that the coin (and my coin-flipping muscles) are all obeying the laws of physics to bring it to its final result. And yet … it’s random enough - provided it was a ‘fair’ flip. And we know all these pseudo-random things do have sufficiently effective randomness - because in doing so they all converge on the same highly statistical and predictable (in large samples) output that reveals its Gaussian nature every time. That convergence of result gives us a lot of certainty that we know what randomness (whether infinitely and philosophically robust or not) must look like.
[think of ‘random’ as more of a place-holder in our language for ‘unpredictable’ in its individual outcomes. I know that’s not mathematically or scientifically robust, but it is all about our sufficient ignorance of something - that it becomes effectively ‘random’ to us. It is all about appearances - and I think that (more robust analysis notwithstanding), that remains true even on the science side as well. The ‘appearances’ will just have to have tighter constraint to avoid detection on the science side than is needed to appear random to casual observers. (i.e. a casual observer may be satisfied that a particular coin is fair. But a statistitian subjecting it to a million flip test may be able to detect a bias.)]
2 Likes
For some reason (I have a hunch why) reading your response made me wonder if only having the decimal value for pi would allow the source for it to be inferred.
Sorry about that … and we could shuffle these off to some private discussion or different thread if that’s desired. But, in our defense, natural thread drift does occur; especially when the O.P. is more than seven years old! If there were still people around wanting this to match that original OP, then my apologies. You or they can propose a suggestion for which post it was way back there that went off the rails and we can adjust as requested then.
2 Likes
Bringing this back to the topic . . .
There’s no evidence of fitness being one of those biases when it comes to mutations.
1 Like
I thought there was some evidence the organism can affect mutations. Whether these mutations are interesting from an evolutionary standpoint is secondary.
Something to be aware of. Thanks! If you’ve got candidate posts in mind for removal, just flag them and I’ll be glad to clean it up then.
Merv
It began as a segway with Denis Noble at comment 92, which then turned into a bigger disagreement than I anticipated
You mean YECs, right? There are also OECs and ECs too.
1 Like
No need for this post in this thread
Ok - it may have been a ‘crude cut’, but I used your observation (CSTR’s well-liked post 139) as an excellent cutting off point, and just lumped everything else into this new thread whether it belongs here or not. I agree that newcomers looking into that topic shouldn’t have to wade through all this stuff to find the prior good stuff that’s actually on topic over there. Thanks for your suggestion.
1 Like
I have yet to seen any ubiquitous mechanism that would create specific beneficial mutations in response to an environmental challenge.
There is the SOS response in bacteria which expresses an error prone DNA polymerase. This can result in a higher mutation rates, but doesn’t specifically produce beneficial mutations.
1 Like
I can’t tell if you are saying you have seen no evidence an organism has affected the traits inherited by the next generation
This is an interesting word in your statement. It seems to carry alot of weight.
I meant exactly what I said.
I have yet to see any ubiquitous mechanism that would create specific beneficial mutations in response to an environmental challenge.
Yes. Earlier, I mentioned the CRISPR/Cas9 system found in some bacteria. I would consider this to be on the non-random side of the spectrum because it inserts phage DNA into specific regions of the genome and can be beneficial for phage resistance. However, this is only found in a few bacteria and can’t explain evolutionary pathways throughout biology. If we are talking about evolution as a whole then we need something ubiquitous, not something that deals with a very specific challenge in a few species.
Added in edit: After reading Wiki it appears CRISPR is much more common in bacterial species than a I thought. However, it is limited to inserts of phage DNA and can’t explain the overall evolution of bacteria as a whole.
3 Likes
I was referring to something @klw mentioned about stress responses being passed to subsequent generations
1 Like