When Randomness Becomes Superstition

sneeze, corona virus, Covid-19, pandemic, Covid, vaccine, COVID

Randomness refers to thought. Generally, randomness designates the ignorance of order. Specifically, it is the logical process of defining a population or set of new sets based on the composition, i.e. the probabilities, of a logical source set. In contrast, if reality were materially random, i.e. lacking order at the level of materiality, experimental science would be impossible.

Philosophical conclusions are popularly judged not to be based on reason and reality, but to be matters of irrational belief, with the possible exception of atheism, which is sometimes viewed as scientific. This essay is an evaluation of the argument that atheism is a scientific conclusion based on the proposal of speciation by random mutation and natural selection.

The essay purports to demonstrate that integral to the argument, there is a commonly accepted series of equivocations in the use of the word, random, which renders the conclusion of atheism a tenet for belief and not a scientific conclusion.

Analysis of the Argument in Outline

In its initially apparent meaning in the proposal of random mutation and natural selection, random is fully consonant with the abstract, mathematical concept of randomness. When myopically envisioned in a material context, the meaning of random via equivocation morphs into a materially random event.

The next equivocation morphs the meaning of random from a materially random event into an adequate explanation of a material event.

The next equivocation morphs random from adequate explanation into ultimate explanation. In other words randomness is taken as an uncaused cause at the material level of existence.

This last equivocation having established the material existence of uncaused causes, thereby ‘scientifically’ removes any philosophical need for deducing the existence of an Uncaused Cause at the non-material level.

The Analysis in Detail

Randomness and probability are solely concerned with the quantity of logical elements, completely ignoring their nominal material properties. Probability is the fractional concentration of an element in a logical set. It is a value in the range of zero to one, without any regard to material properties.

The material properties, associated with the IDs of the logical elements are irrelevant to the mathematics. The random formation of new sets is totally independent of material properties. The mathematical definitions of randomness and probability remove material causality from mental consideration. Material causality cannot be removed by human thought from the material world.

Material causality is the reality that material properties determine material outcomes through material processes. Material causality renders science possible.

The application of the mathematics of randomness and probability to material elements is analogical and requires our ignorance of the material processes, which produce the outcomes. It requires our ignorance of those material processes, which we seek to understand through scientific investigation. It is a utility designed to compensate for our ignorance not to resolve it.

The shuffling of a deck of cards, e.g., is judged to be an emulation of randomness resulting in a sequence of the deck as a random outcome. If we knew in detail the beginning sequence and the material forces to which the cards were subjected during shuffling we would not view the shuffling or the outcome as random. It is only in ignorance that we can use the word, random, in a material context.

The completely valid discussion of randomness and probability in terms of random mutations is a mental abstraction from material reality and is no justification for the equivocal use of the term, random mutation, as a material reality. In fact, the existence of materially random events renders science impossible.

Positing a material event as materially random denies that material outcomes are due to material properties and material processes, which are the stuff of science. It is a claim that a material outcome can be totally independent of material circumstances. The error of positing a materially random event, identifying randomness with its materiality rather than with human thought, is the failure to understand the meaning of mathematical randomness, which is an abstract concept that has no correspondence to material things except in our ignorance of them in detail. In its analogical application to material reality, mathematical randomness suspends knowledge of scientific factors. Material randomness denies their existence.

Thus, starting with the mathematical definition of randomness as informing the expression, random mutation, and then understanding random mutation as a materially random event is committing the logical error of equivocation. If we view this as science rather than as an error in logic, the next equivocation is easy.

It morphs the meaning of random from a materially random event into an adequate scientific explanation of a material event. The final equivocation in the above list is another slalom gate marking one’s descent down the slippery slope of equivocation. That equivocation changes the meaning from a scientifically adequate explanation to the ultimate explanation.

It is Equivocation

The randomness of biological mutation is presented as both important and scientific. It cannot be either trivial or non-scientific. However, upon examination, if the meaning of random refers to mathematical randomness, the theory is trivial, and if the meaning of random refers to material randomness, the theory is not scientific. In order for random mutation to appear to be both important and scientific, random must be understood equivocally.

The theory proposes a contrast in two processes, biological generation and biological survival. The contrast is that generation of variants is random, while their differential survival is natural. First, consider that random refers to mathematical randomness. The theory would then be that both biological generation and biological survival are natural processes, and therefore, subject to scientific investigation, but whereas the mathematics of randomness can be readily applied to generation, it cannot be applied to survival. This is obviously not true.

Natural selection implies mathematical randomness in that the mathematical probability of survival is proposed by the theory to be 1/N where, due to the material forces of the biosphere affecting survival, one biological form survives out of N variant biological forms. Similarly, the probability of the generation of the survivable variant is 1/N. If random means mathematically random, then there is no contrast between generation and survival with respect to being natural processes or with respect to the possibility of applying the mathematics of randomness to the one and not to the other. Thus, the theory would be trivial.

However, the theory itself implies that randomness is material randomness. This can be seen by examining the theory in its reciprocal formulation. By examining the reciprocal formulation, it will be evident that random refers to material randomness, which is non-scientific. It is this non-scientific character from which arises the importance of the theory of random mutation in generation and natural selection in survival with its conclusion of atheism.

The reciprocal theory: The biological generation of variants is due to natural mutation while their differential survival is due to random selection. Taking randomness as mathematical, the reciprocal theory would be that the mathematics of randomness is applicable to survival but not to generation.

But this cannot be so by the same rationale cited above, namely that mathematical randomness can be applied to both processes and therefore does not offer any contrast between the processes of generation and survival. If random refers to mathematical randomness the initial theory and the reciprocal theory would be only grammatically distinguishable from one another. Both theories would have the exact same meaning.

However, the spontaneous criticism of the reciprocal theory would be to state (1) that survival was obviously due to the natural forces of the biosphere and therefore could not be random and (2) that random survival would place the biological process of survival beyond the scope of scientific investigation as a scientifically intractable mystery. These statements are true only for material randomness.

Mathematical randomness erects only a logical barrier to scientific knowledge. It suspends knowledge of the material processes underlying material outcomes, while allowing those processes to exist as natural and scientific. In contrast, material randomness places a biological process beyond the scope of scientific investigation. Thus, the intention of materially random mutation would render the theory of random mutation important precisely because it rendered it non-scientific.

Thus, if random mutation in the generation of biological variants and natural selection in their differential survival, is to be understood as both scientific and important, the word, random, must be understood equivocally as alleged.

In What Sense is this Superstition?

Having abandoned the understanding of mathematics with the first equivocation how is the result, a materially random event, necessarily a belief? The answer lies in the universal recognition that intellectual assent to the occurrence of creative material events or creative material mutations is an act of belief, whether rational or irrational.

It is belief because by definition a creative material event/mutation is one that is materially, i.e. scientifically, inexplicable. However, this is the identical characterization of a materially random event/mutation. A materially random event/mutation is one that is materially, i.e. scientifically, inexplicable.

Experimentation would be folly in a material world in which either random events or creative events were commonly occurring. Both are scientifically, i.e. materially, inexplicable. There can be no objective criteria for distinguishing a random material event from a creative material event, since both are scientifically intractable mysteries. The distinction depends upon whether one believes in the one or the other.

Belief in the occurrence of creative material events throughout human experience, continuing through the present and on into the future renders science impossible. Belief in the occurrence of random material events throughout human experience, continuing through the present and on into the future renders science impossible.

The passing of the term, random mutation, from a mathematical discussion of randomness through the twilight zone of the logical error of equivocation into the real world of material causality results in the devolution of a mathematical discussion into an imaginative saga. The story of random mutation in the real world of material reality is simply an imaginative description of a series of hypothetical random material events in the past, which projects this continual unfolding mystery of randomness through the present and into the future.

This is superstition. It is superstition because it claims that material outcomes are not dependent upon material properties and material processes, but upon an inexplicable unfolding mystery. In contrast, the Jewish and Christian Faiths believe material creation ceased with the creation of man, rendering experimental science possible throughout human existence.

Conclusion

Belief in materially random mutation in biological generation in contrast to natural selection in the differential survival of the mutations, is consonant with atheism as the conclusion of an argument of equivocation and superstition. Belief in materially random events is an anti-scientific fantasy.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

8 thoughts on “When Randomness Becomes Superstition”

  1. Pingback: Yoga Is Not an Exercise, It Is a Spiritual Practice, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio

  2. Pingback: When Randomness Becomes Superstition - Catholic Stand

  3. Pingback: Extra, Extra! News and views for September 28, 2022 – Catholic Mass Online Search

  4. Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  5. Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  6. It would seem then that everyday interactions/ vibrations that radiate and attenuate from the source. overlap disparate events everywhere, to create unintended interactions and events which seemingly have nothing to do with each other. For example, N creates disharmony to individual A who is affected in such a way that the negative energy from the encounter, although slightly dissipated, affects individual B, who is completely unknown to N, which in turn causes an attitude for individual C who is further removed and unknown from either A or B. When this dissipating negative energy reaches individual D there is a chance that D is affected many times more than the original N event thereby causing an extreme reaction, disproportionately negative ( ie: from mere words to murder). It would then seem that if science could track a sample encounter to its almost infinite conclusion, the cause/effect could be traced to explain events that seemingly have nothing in common. Does this example parallel your lesson ?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.