I'd like to think that natural selection is not random. — Cidat

If a drop of rain falls downwards, the path of the raindrop is not random, in that the new position of the raindrop depends on its previous position. The path of the raindrop is also logical, in that it is following a set of rules, in this case, the laws of nature. Therefore the path of the raindrop is both logical and not random.

Extrapolating, natural selection is both logical and not random, meaning that the fact that one species dominates is both logical and not random. However, any final situation, regardless of what it had turned out to be, would be both logical and not random. Two species dominating would have been both logical and not random. No species dominating would have been both logical and not random.

It does not follow that because the final situation is both logical and not random, the final situation has been teleologically pre-determined. Even though the final situation is both logical and not random, it does not follow that the final situation has any special meaning.

The fact that a sequence of events is both logical and non random is insufficient to give meaning to any subsequent state of affairs.

Random!? The answer to your question, dear OP, would depend on whether the world makes sense to (us/someone other than us, perhaps a higher intelligence)?

Yet, a case can be made that randomness (mutations with no rhyme or reason in them) is life's best game plan/strategy against an enemy (Thanatos) well-known for dropping by at unexpected, odd, ungodly hours and venues (planet-killer asteroids are stray bullets, oui?)

Quite intriguingly this: If a person is firing his gun randomly at points A, B, and C. It makes no sense to randomly switch one's position among the positions A, B, C. The chances of getting struck by a bullet is the same as just staying put, quietly now, reading a book perhaps, in any one of these locations. Am I right? :chin:

natural selection is not random. — Cidat

Randomness is a human construct for covering those things that we can't predict. Human predictive capacity is very limited. Therefore our perception of things can be called random when it is completely unpredictable.

Random —> unpredictable; however, unpredictable –/–> random (e.g. chaotic systems).

Random —> unpredictable; however, unpredictable –/–> random

(e.g. chaotic systems). — 180 Proof

Chaotic systems don't exist. We just don't know what happens in chaotic systems.

And I don't follow this:

Random —> unpredictable; however, unpredictable –/–> random — 180 Proof

If you are able to explain in clear, precise, grammatically correct Englsih, and lacking in ad-hoc unconventional logical symbols, then please do. If you are incapable of writing without CAPITALIZING, italicizing, bolding and underscoring for lack of ability to express yourself in proper English, then please don't bother. I won't read your gibberish.

Chaotic systems don't exist. — god must be atheist

If you're going to spout scientifically illiterate and innumerate "gibberish" like the above sentence, then you damn well can afford to learn something by deciphering my dumbed-down (for your benefit) abbreviated schema.

:sweat:

Some long-form "gibberish" courtesy of scholars @Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/

I stand corrected. You used the physics meaning of chaos; I understood that you used the common English meaning of chaos.

In the physics meaning, "behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions."

So please notice the operative word "appear". A chaotic system is not random; it only appears to be random.

After my admitting my mistake, and properly seeing what you meant (thanks for the reference to point out my mistake!) please explain what you mean with this, after I said that unpredictability is a human disability, and randomness is a human construct for those events that can't be predicted:

Random —> unpredictable; however, unpredictable –/–> random (e.g. chaotic systems). — 180 Proof

please remember: I think everything is predictable, but not by humans; and things that humans call random are predictable too, but not by humans. How does your formula improve or contradict my claim?

Is randomness a reason (re: the principle of sufficient reason aka PSR)?

On my way to bed. I'll address this (interesting) question as best as I can tomorrow.

The apparent outcome of evolution leading to one species controlling and messing up the planet is arbitrary. But there is hope. Balance can still be restored. That's not arbitrary but determined.

Cidat — Cidat

It looks like you are confusing how things work when we try to explain nature by logic. When we are able to predict the behaviour of an object, or an animal, this does not mean that the object, or the animal, is behaving according to our human extremely limited, I would even say stupid, logic. It is the opposite: we have built a logic that we adapted to what we observe in phenomenons, in order to gain some understanding and some mastering on those phenomenons. Logic has been built on events, not events on logic. Logic obeys to events, not events to logic. The fact that events seem to obey to some logic is just a human hypothesis, a mental frame, to try to understand nature.
That’s the reason why we haven’t been able to build a complete, comprehensive logic, able to explain everything so far. Think about this: why should nature obey to the ridiculous logic, miserable mental frames, poor schemes, petty rational systems, created by humans?

Agreed that the logic or chaos would have to be observed by us to make an argument one way or the other. But that is what is required here. Chaos or logic would need to be something that we (in our limited way) can observe.

I would argue about natural selection, that it is not random. But we can't just say survival of the fittest. There are way more variables to consider than fitness.

Even our idea of natural selection, however we describe it, is a human interpretation. Even when we support our ideas with scientific evidence, it is still us managing how to interpret the elements offered by science. We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations.

Is everything random, or at least some things logical?
For example, I'd like to think that natural selection is not random. It was probably not random that one species would eventually evolve and dominate the animal kingdom, which is us humans. — Cidat

Reality is not reducible to a binary value. Natural selection is contingent upon both the random variability and logical consolidation of energy.

Even our idea of natural selection, however we describe it, is a human interpretation. Even when we support our ideas with scientific evidence, it is still us managing how to interpret the elements offered by science. We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations. — Angelo Cannata

The concepts are human interpretations, but there is an objectivity to be found in the quality of these ideas - if we can get past the affected nature of our existing relation.

The quality of both logic and randomness relates to the possibility/impossibility of absolute ‘oneness’, or universality.

Random vs logical? or random vs determined? Randomness is a logical concept. And logical is a human concept.

When we are able to predict the behaviour of an object, or an animal, this does not mean that the object, or the animal, is behaving according to our human extremely limited, I would even say stupid, logic. It is the opposite: we have built a logic that we adapted to what we observe in phenomenons, in order to gain some understanding and some mastering on those phenomenons. — Angelo Cannata

Well put! Our oversimplifications are useful but not constraints on what we model.

We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations. — Angelo Cannata

Another nice one!

Think about this: why should nature obey to the ridiculous logic, miserable mental frames, poor schemes, petty rational systems, created by humans? — Angelo Cannata

Especially when we seem to be merely a piece of that same nature, its 'creation.'

Random —> unpredictable; however, unpredictable –/–> random (e.g. chaotic systems).
— 180 Proof

please remember: I think everything is predictable, but not by humans; and things that humans call random are predictable too, but not by humans. — god must be atheist

(1) Whatever cannot be predicted "by" (i.e. is intractably complex to) "humans" is, of course, unpredictable for humans (e.g. chaos theory, the P versus NP problem), yet are not 'random expressions or processes'.

(2) Whatever is random (e.g. noise, quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, evolutionary genetic mutations, Kolmogorov randomness) is, in fact, universally unpredictable.

Many have believed, and still believe (so much for modern public education), that e.g. "the Earth is flat"; that you believe "everything is predictable" (despite mathematical and scientific evidences to the contrary), gmba, doesn't change the facts expressed in the two sentences above.

How does your formula improve or contradict my claim?

"Random —> unpredictable" abbrevates sentence (2) above and "unpredictable –/–> random" abbreviates sentence (1). Both contradict your evidence-free "claim".

there is an objectivity to be found — Possibility

Whatever objective you think you found is interpreted by you, so how can you say that it is objective?

Whatever objective you think you found is interpreted by you, so how can you say that it is objective? — Angelo Cannata

You can always say: "for me or us, it's an objective truth."

You can say this in everyday life language, which is a language that doesn't need to be exact, precise. But, if you want to talk in a proper philosophical way, what you said is a contradiction: "objective" , in a rigorous philosophical way, means absolutely independent from anybody. So, if you instead make it relative by adding "for me", it becomes contradictory. It is like saying "in my opinion this fact is independent from my opinion"; in everyday language this can be accepted, but philosophically it becomes meaningless or contradictory. Being able to build a sentence that is grammatically correct doesn't automatically guarantee that the sentence makes sense or has a meaning.
If a fact is really objective, you must be able to say "This is not my opinion, this is a fact". You can say "In my opinion this is not my opinion", but this is not philosophy, this is careless common language. Absolute objectivity is what Descartes tried to find: his effort was to find something about which you can say "This is not my opinion and I don't even say that I think that it is not my opinion; this is just a fact, undeniable for everybody". This is the true absolute objectivity that Descartes wanted to reach and this is what we mean when we say "objective" in a philosophical sense. A philosopher would never say "I think that this is objective".
Something similar can be found in everyday language when we say "Two plus two are four". It is not easy to find people saying "In my opinion 2+2=4". Normally they claim that it is not their opinion, it is just a fact, so that, in that case, adding "in my opinion" doesn't make sense even in everyday language.

a rigorous philosophical way, means absolutely independent from anybody. So, if you instead make it relative by adding "for me", it becomes contradictory — Angelo Cannata

That depends on your philosophical position in the objective field. If you consider reality, like initiated by Xenophanes and Plato, who started the trend, leading to the modern conception of a subject independent unique scientifically and asymptotically approachable objective world, the same for all, then yes. If you consider objective reality dependent on the subject, then no. In this concept of objective reality there is no contradiction.

Randomness is a human construct

This is definitely true. So is goodness/infinite etc. There's nothing except a human abstraction which is randomness.

If you're going to spout scientifically illiterate and innumerate

It even says in the link that "In addition to exhibiting sensitive dependence, chaotic systems possess two other properties: they are deterministic and nonlinear (Smith 2007)."

This in no way implies an equivalence between what was said about randomness.

What Angelo said and you also can't say "x is everything around y" because you're not communicating anything meaningful.
When you say e.g. "helium is objective" you're communicating nothing anyone can use but if you say "helium is the second element on the periodic table" it becomes an actual proposition.

When you say e.g. "helium is objective" you're communicating nothing anyone can use but if you say "helium is the second element on the periodic table" it becomes an actual proposition. — Shwah

Dunno Shwah. Helium is objective seems more an actual proposition than helium being the second element on the periodic table. Helium actually is objective. There is super fluid helium, gaseous helium, hot helium, helium for balloons, helium to talk funny with, etc. The proposition that it is a second element on a periodic table seems pretty far-fetched and extramundane.

If you consider objective reality dependent on the subject, then no. In this concept of objective reality there is no contradiction. — EugeneW

This is not what you find if you look for “objective” in any dictionary. See, for example, here:

“In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint”

or here:

“In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity”.

objective" , in a rigorous philosophical way, means absolutely independent from anybody. — Angelo Cannata

That depends on the rigorous philosophy used. For you, objective reality it is an unknowable world, independent of human influences. I connect it with human influence, knowledge, ideas, worldviews, beliefs, etc. Your objective reality is one amongst many. Of course my philosophy about objective reality seems self contradictory. But only relative to yours. Judged by its own standards, its consistent.

This is not what you find if you look for “objective” in any dictionary. — Angelo Cannata

Of course not. But the western dictionary is based on a philosophy started by Xenophanes and Plato. In this philosophy the simultaneous existence of multiple objective realities is indeed a contradiction. But there is no need to conform to this philosophy.

Is everything random, or are at least some things random? In every new universe, in an infinite series of them, the emergence of life is logical. That's what unìverses are for. Life is an inevitable development. The ways all life comes to be is random but, as might be expected, within the confines of possibilities.