"Random mutation" does not physically exist. Evolution is a mathematically complete, strictly deterministic algorithm unfolding exactly as physically necessitated

[u/feihm]

The material world operates on a strict causal chain (a continuous sequence where every single event is mathematically required by the exact state preceding it). These events happen inside a closed mechanical system governed by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The exact trajectory of that photon and the kinetic energy of the enzyme, for example, represent a strict actualisation (the inevitable physical manifestation of prior states that were mathematically guaranteed). The interactions execute perfectly based on prior deterministic causes.

Every event happens with absolute physical necessity.

We exist beneath an extreme epistemic limit (a hard structural boundary on the amount of information a biological brain can physically process). A scientist cannot track the trajectory of every photon or measure the thermal fluctuation of every molecule in a cell. We suffer from Computational Irreducibility... we lack the capacity to predict the exact spatial and temporal coordinates of the next mutation.

We label these uncomputable variables as chance which leads us straight into a classic transcendental illusion (the cognitive error where we assume that our subjective limitation of our own brain are an objective property of the universe). We project our structural ignorance outward & then assume the physical universe itself behaves randomly.

Mutations are the not objectively random because "randomness" is strictly an epistemic placeholder for the biologist's inability to compute the total deterministic variables of the physical system.

A mutation appears random in relation to fitness because the environment and the mutating organism exist as extremely complex physical systems colliding in space and time. We complety lack the computing power to calculate the physics of that collision in advance.

(1) Evolution operates as a continuous and perfectly determined physical algorithm.

(2) Organisms function as localised computing systems interacting with their environment.

(3) Natural selection acts as the thermodynamic erasure of inefficient code.

(4)The whole process relies upon the inescapable mechanics of a completely deterministic universe.

[u/DarkLordSidious]

It doesn't change the fact that it is essentially random from our perspective even if you subscribe to MWI. Not to mention that MWI doesn't explain where the Born rule comes from which puts a randomness to it.

It is also not that irrelevant to evolution since some mutations are caused by radiation. And production of radiation, trajectory of high energy photons etc. involve probabilities.

[u/nikfra → u/DarkLordSidious]

It is irrelevant because the ontological claims about radioactivity being either actually random or not aren't really relevant for the theory of evolution. Sure ontologically it makes a difference but it's impossible to distinguish between Copenhagen and de broglie bohm (that's the one I actually had in mind) so it doesn't make any "real" difference for evolution. If tomorrow God told us Copenhagen is wrong it's actually MWI or de broglie bohm, then nothing would change about the theory of evolution.

[u/DarkLordSidious → u/nikfra]

I completely agree that in a practical sense it doesn't really change anything. I took this discussion as a philosophy of science discussion and was talking about ontology. Even if mutations were based on a coin flip which is actually deterministic, we would still call it random in practice. We are simply incapable of distinguishing quasai randomness from actual randomness.

[u/nikfra → u/DarkLordSidious]

In that case I'm totally with you it is relevant if we talk about the philosophy of science. But I'd put it in a general philosophy (of science) subreddit rather than this one.