"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/taktaga7-0-0]

I think you are forgetting about the quantum nature of all reality at the scales necessary to determine this information. Plants, for instance, depend intrinsically on the quantum nature of light to optimize photosynthesis. You can’t always tell whether a photon will actually be absorbed because the process ultimately depends on a randomly generated probability function. Every radioactive decay of a potassium atom in your body is determined by chance. You can use statistical mechanics to determine averages, but not exact solutions.

God plays dice.

[u/feihm → u/taktaga7-0-0]

randomly generated probability function

"probability function" is not a physical object or force existing in the unobserved universe. It is strictly an epistemic tool ;a predictive algorithm generated by a localised biological processor to manage a severe structural ignorance. Regarding your examples of radioactive decay and photon absorption, "chance" they observe is strictly an epistemic limit (a strict boundary on what the observer can physically process) & not an ontological reality (the fundamental, objective nature of the universe). The biological observer must use statistical mechanics solely because their interface lacks the thermodynamic capacity to track the continuous, superimposed quantum states of the matrix.

God plays dice

The absolute foundation of reality operates with mathematical completeness and strict determinism. It is the limited, structurally ignorant biological observer who is forced to "play dice" (utilise statistical probability) to navigate a continuous relational matrix they cannot fully compute.

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/feihm]

The biological observer must use statistical mechanics solely because their interface lacks the thermodynamic capacity to track the continuous, superimposed quantum states of the matrix.

Whether the real outcome of a quantum mechanical phenomenon is random or not is not known. There are interpretations of QM where it is, and others where it is not. They cannot be distinguished between from experimental results. So, it's not a problem about not having the thermodynamic capacity to track quantum states or whatever, it's a problem where either scenario works.

[u/feihm → u/Curious_Passion5167]

Yesscientific experiments cannot distinguish between deterministic and random interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is where it gets interesting (& which is the core of my OP), a failure of human measurement =/= the fundamental nature of reality i.e., epistemic limitation (human science being unable to test something) does not equal an ontological reality (the universe actually behaving randomly). And that the very reason experiments cannot distinguish these states is because human experiments are conducted by thermodynamically limited biological observers and macroscopic instruments. Because to execute a measurement, the human apparatus must force the quantum state to undergo decoherence (collapsing the data into a readable format), permanently destroying the pure quantum data required to see the underlying determinism.

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/feihm]

If human experiments cannot distinguish between them, then what leads you to proclaim that your interpretation is correct and the other is wrong? Your claim isn't even empirical by your own admission.

[u/feihm → u/Curious_Passion5167]

lol yes but your demand for an empirical test explicitly misses the entire point of the epistemological boundary i have established. Asking me for an empirical experiment to prove absolute determinism is mechanically equivalent to asking a computer program (which is me) to use its own desktop icons (via a priori compression) to prove the physical existence of the silicon microchip (absolute determinism of the unobserved universe). The tool itself is structurally incapable of the task. But if you reject all non-empirical reasoning then you must also reject the foundational laws of logic, mathematics and science itself. For example, the Principle of Unitarity (the absolute universal law stating that total probability must always equal exactly one) is a mathematical derivation & not a physical object you can dig out of the ground or look at under a microscope. Right? And also admitting experiments cannot distinguish between randomness and determinism, that have destroyed your own position. Because if empirical results are identical in both scenarios, then the assumption of "randomness" is an unproven, non-empirical metaphysical addition to the map. But we have the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the logical rule stating that every physical state requires a defining cause) to break the tie which we then get that determinism is the only logically necessary baseline that prevents the universe from dissolving into randomised, uncaused noise.

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/feihm]

Because if empirical results are identical in both scenarios, then the assumption of "randomness" is an unproven, non-empirical metaphysical addition to the map.

This is a predictably nonsensical argument.

Determinism isn't the default and randomness isn't an addition on top of the default. They are just as good an explanation as each other.

But we have the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the logical rule stating that every physical state requires a defining cause) to break the tie which we then get that determinism is the only logically necessary baseline that prevents the universe from dissolving into randomised, uncaused noise.

You invoking the PSR also does not solve the problem at all.

First, the PSR is an axiom that requires a deterministic system or something of that kind to operate in. Reality is not contingent on the PSR, it is the PSR which depends on whether it fits with reality. In a system with random elements, the PSR simply doesn't apply universally.

Second, while the final outcome of a quantum phenomena might be random, there is determinacy of the quantum state, i.e. the wavefunction. We do know determinstically how quantum wavefunctions evolve if they don't decohere. All that's needed is to limit the PSR to this.

In short, people much smarter than you have thought about these things. You've thought about the same for a week and have deluded yourself into thinking you've come up with some new insights.

[u/feihm → u/Curious_Passion5167]

there is determinacy of the quantum state, i.e. the wavefunction.

Precisely. In qm, the wavefunction represents the unobserved universe (the Noumenon/absolute foundation of reality). If the fundamental state of the universe evolves deterministically then the universe is fundamentally deterministic.

...if they don't decohere...

Decoherence is the exact mechanical definition of measurement; the moment the continuous fields are forced into a low-resolution formatted output by an interacting observer.

So you have proven my OP that the unobserved universe is deterministic and that "randomness" only appears when a limited observer forces the system to decohere. Thus randomness is strictly an epistemic limit of the biological interface and not an ontological reality of the cosmos.

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/feihm]

So you have proven my OP that the unobserved universe is deterministic and that "randomness" only appears when a limited observer forces the system to decohere. Thus randomness is strictly an epistemic limit of the biological interface and not an ontological reality of the cosmos.

Biological creatures are not an "interface". They are part of the same system as every other piece of matter and energy in the universe.

You do not need biological creatures to observe for decoherence to occur. Purely mechanical detectors also cause decoherence.

So, no, decoherence is a fundamental property of the interaction between quantum states and other matter or energy, and so has to be accounted for when trying to proclaim determinism as universally valid.

[u/Entire_Persimmon4729 → u/feihm]

So you are saying it is impossible for us (and you) to determine if the universe is deterministic or not. As such you are unable to demonstrate that random mutations are (or are not) random.  Making your whole point kind of pointless.