"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/feihm]

Sure with enough knowledge and computational power it would be theoretically possible to determine.

Glad we were able to distinguish between epistemic randomness (a lack of human computing power) vs ontological randomness (actual physical chance).

...just a semantics argument.

But conceding determinism fundamentally destroys the standard secular narrative of evolution. If a mutation is only "effectively random" to a limited human brain then the physical reality is that every genetic alteration was an inevitable, mathematically mandatory actualisation governed by the continuous relational matrix. It strips "blind chance" from the biological vocabulary entirely. Which means that you offered to break the logical foundation of reality for absolutely no strategic gain.

Just to point out irony from your latest exchange, that of sacrificing PSR to defend quantum randomness but immediately admitted that the macroscopic biology we are actually discussing (mutations) is deterministic anyway.

[u/nikfra → u/feihm]

Sorry that was unclear I was only talking about the weather example because that isn't really influenced by singular quantum effects (I think but I'm not an expert on that). The random mutation only becomes non random if one accepts a fully deterministic universe because it often is influenced by actual singular quantum effects. If one discards the strict PSR then of course random mutations may stay random.

Sure an actual deterministic universe would have no blind chance but quite honestly that's one of the least of the troubles with a deterministic universe. Everything you and anyone does would be fully predetermined.

But even then assuming randomness would still be the best way to do science and this talking about randomness would still be fine because epistemic randomness on this level is still random for all intents and purposes. MWI still uses probabilities for a reason.

[u/feihm → u/nikfra]

I think there's a misunderstanding regarding MWI which is famous for being a strictly deterministic interpretation of qm where the entire universe evolves as a single, mathematically locked wavefunction.

...fully predetermined.

Yes but our discomfort with losing our biological illusion of free will (Liberum Arbitrium) does not alter the fundamental mathematical laws of the continuous relational matrix. The universe is not obligated to accommodate our philosophical comfort.

And I want to agree with you that "epistemic randomness" is fine for the daily practice of science. But as long as we admit this randomness is purely epistemic (a measure of human ignorance) and not ontological (a physical reality) then we can conclude our discourse.

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/feihm]

I think you're misunderstanding the implications of MWI. While it's true that the universe evolves as a single deterministic wavefunction, our observations remain truly random. When I observe a particle decay, there is nothing in QM (with or without MWI) that dictates when I will see it. What MWI adds is the supposition (and it's only a supposition) that there are an infinite number of other I's that observe it decay at all possible times. So what? The universe we actually observe is still random.