I think, at least it appears so, that we are in agreement with each other on most of what was discussed between us. The only problem I can see is in defining what ‘randomness’ is, and both of us share even that.
The only problem I can see is in defining what ‘randomness’ is, and both of us share even that.
Yes, but the fact that there is this problem is a major part of my point. :)
As I noted before one cannot determine if a number is random by looking at it. And, a number can be random to you, but not to me.
The same can be said for events. Random, in one usage, means "Having no definite aim or purpose," however "purpose" in the scientific sense is not really a valid term. In pure science, things/events just are and just do what they do; science describes these - provided they can be reduced to the methodology required of science.
And "having no aim or purpose" is at least a level outside pure science. It's akin to asking "what does it mean..."
I think it safe to say that science knows or assumes the universe is not completely random. (Because matter, space and energy follow certain consistent patterns.) If we cannot know, scientifically, what is random, then how can we know that it exists at all? The most science can say is: having no aim or purpose thus far detected using science."
My main point, again, is that parts of the discussion of, I would say the most important parts, are outside the capacity of science to know.
"parts of the discussion of evolution,…