Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.” And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)
So when one observes that anything in the physical creation is “random” he is making a statement of faith per se.
= = =
Absolutely.
Have often said something similar over the decades. Sadly, the dogmatic faith in scientism is so entrenched, rigid, narrow . . . biased . . . the listeners often cannot even fathom the statement . . . just does not compute for them . . . goes in one ear, sails through clear air and out the other . . . and they just keep spouting the same religious-of-scientism dogma that is totally blown out of the water by the one fact you stated so simply, clearly and accurately.
Thx as ever.
Dogma is a very good word for it. You might enjoy this article:
Abstract — The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis -- these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.