OK So split it up into the 2 separate parts.
1) All evidence and all existing experiemnts have shown that the Universe is random, See the much better explanation of it earlier by
@mcogilvie I use random in the physics sense and in the way random assortment of genes happens and so on.
2) Humans do not like to live with random. So we need to put some meaning into the random actions that make up existence in this particular time/space continum. I posit that such meaning is based almost entirely on what we expect to see, our previous experiences and our basic knowledge of science. I simplified it by stating that the universe becomes what we see and recognize, my way of saying our preconceived notions of what we expect will form our world view. The hardest thing a scientist has to do is to thinkg up something completely novel and figure out of there is a way to prove or disprove that theory.
The fact that so many humans believe a number of things that are BS that have been proven over and over by science not to be accurate is baffling to me.
The problem though with saying that people don’t like to live with randomness, therefore they put meaning into it, is that it commits the genetic fallacy of trying to invalidate a point of view by attempting an explanation of how the view originates. Even if somebody hated the idea of a random universe and therefore they read purpose and order into it, that doesn’t show that the order and purpose isn’t true (it’s just that that particular person would have a lousy basis for affirming it). The question of randomness vs purpose needs settling on the basis of evidence and argument.
And when it comes to that question of evidence and argument, I do think there’s a little bit of equivocation here too that needs ironing out, (though do,
@Oogiem, please let me know if I‘ve mis-read your argument at any point). On the one hand, “random” is being used to describe certain kinds of subatomic activities as defined within physics; but then on the other hand, “random” seems to be being used on the broader, metaphysical scale to mean that the entire universe / realm of existence is meaningless / purposeless.
Think back to the example from biology: it would be a fallacy for me to say that because genetic mutations are random (in the sense that they are completely disconnected from whether they help the host survive or not), that therefore the lives of those hosts are “random” in the sense that they happen under no purpose, plan or direction. The latter is a metaphysical claim which the scientific definition of randomness cannot address. Hence, it is both a non sequitur and an equivocation to try to draw a direct inference from one to the other.
And I do think it’s worth driving home the earlier point, about whether or not we are living consistently with the worldview that we advocate. Depending on whatever definition of random we are using, we should ask: to what extent does this description of the universe actually match what we observe and experience?
For example, we are using non-random, highly meaning and information-laden semiotic devices in this forum to hold a rational conversation about the nature of the universe. Nobody is worried about subatomic activity undermining the meaning, precision, and profundities of what we are trying to communicate to each other here in this forum. We are not simply typing random characters such as jdgfdiuu it dd eisirhforeuidkfkrwweehohb tgjthfufhfkbjewrr et iihfieid BC f oh at u err kick dc nbkgffdvvdkoff.....
.....But yet, if we are really serious about biting the bullet in claiming that the universe is random, then all of our exchanges on GTD connect (in fact, the entire enterprise of science itself) would have to amount to no more than those garbled, random key strokes. Is anybody seriously prepared, intellectually, to bite that bullet? And would it not surely be self-refuting to even try to communicate such a claim? Namely, that science has shown that the universe is random, and that therefore science - being part of the universe - is
itself random (in which case, why trust it)?
Indeed, if it really is the case that the universe is random, and that people read meaning into it because they can't handle it, then why should science be exempt from this? Why would science not also fall under the umbrella of illusions that people tell to themselves to cope with the randomness of the universe? Note that it would be no good to try to appeal to arguments such as "because it works", or "because it is repeatable", because this would be arguing in a circle.
So I do think an important place to start is, when we say “random”, what do we mean, and what happens if we apply the claim to itself and the party who makes the claim?
