Randomness

[Ponder This]

Well, I would suggest looking at how areas of science that have to address such questions of intent and design deal with them. So, for example, it is common in anthropology or archeology to have to determine whether a find is, in fact, produced by human intelligence or is naturally produced.

The typical way to determine this is to study the types of effects the natural environment without humans produces and then to see what sorts of things human produce and to compare the two. This is how, for example, we can know that a certain bone was cleaned by a knife or stone as opposed to simply being de-fleshed from wind, rain, and other weather.

In this case, the question becomes what sorts of mutations do we see when there is no intervention by an intelligence. Well, since that is the default situation (except in some labs), all we have to do is look at what happens naturally. We can then compare to what happens in a lab environment where there are specific goals for the end results.

One issue if you start by asking about consciousness is that we have to be careful to not assume other consciousnesses have the same drives or aesthetics that we do. So, if asked what an alien intelligence would do, I have to admit complete lack of knowledge there. The only way to determine if an alien intelligence is operative is if we can detect a difference between 'natural' effects and what the alien intelligence would produce.

Of course, this begs the question of whether the natural laws are determined by some intelligence. But without any evidence that the laws *could* be different, that just seems like pointless speculation.

So, yes, the law of gravity is non-random in it effects: we can predict orbits of planets, for example, through its use. That means the gravitational dynamics is not random. And, of course, Newtonian physics in general is NOT random, even when it allows for chaotic dynamics.

But, in contrast, quantum mechanics *is* random. There is no way, even in theory, to predict the results of a quantum event, even if we have *perfect* knowledge of the quantum state ahead of time.

We are on the same page about the difficulties of scientifically affirming or rejecting intelligence.
(You are wrong about QM though ).

Generally speaking, when we say there is no intelligence or consciousness we are referring to human intelligence or consciousness and not the intelligence or consciousness of third parties for which no method exists to discern them.

 

[exchemist]

I agree that the lack of an experiment that can affirm or reject the intelligence hypothesis is precisely the point. This is why science can't assert that there is no intelligence.. Science can't even assert there is no alien influence. What science can do is assert that there is no human influence, because human influence is something science can control for in an experiment.

True. However science does work on the basis of Ockham's Razor. If there is no evidence for an hypothesis, that hypothesis is not used by science.

 

[Ponder This]

True. However science does work on the basis of Ockham's Razor. If there is no evidence for an hypothesis, that hypothesis is not used by science.

Not exactly.
You have misstated Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor does not apply to hypotheses for which there is no evidence.

Ockham's Razor is a principle of diagnosis in the case of multiple equally acceptable explanations.
For example, a runny nose indicates the common cold. It also may also indicate many other things all of which are accepted by science and for which a runny nose is a symptom (i.e. the runny nose is evidence for an allergy). Ockham's Razor indicates that you should first test the simplest explanation, i.e. it is the common cold, before trying to determine if the more complex explanations apply, e.g. it is an allergy. This is the meaning behind the simplest explanation is the more likely explanation.

So in the case of the intelligence hypothesis, science does not reject the hypothesis because of lack of evidence (which is an incoherent concept in the absence of an experiment). Rather, it considers intelligence to be a more complex explanation (because it introduces an additional unknown) and unconsciousness to be the simpler explanation (because it has one less unknown). So the most likely explanation (not necessarily the correct explanation) is that there is no intelligence. More complex explanations are still be used by science. Science doesn't reject hypotheses because they are complex.

To be clear, the statement, "There is no evidence" is meaningless in the absence of an experiment, which is why it has to be constantly pointed out to people that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People are often mistaken about what constitutes evidence of absence. A person will often think that because he personally hasn't observed something or because science hasn't conducted an experiment about a thing, that it constitutes evidence of absence. This is not a conclusion that follows logically or scientifically. The most likely (simplest) explanation is that these people are mistaken (Ockham's Razor).

 

[exchemist]

Not exactly.
You have misstated Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor does not apply to hypotheses for which there is no evidence.

Ockham's Razor is a principle of diagnosis in the case of multiple equally acceptable explanations.
For example, a runny nose indicates the common cold. It also may also indicate many other things all of which are accepted by science and for which a runny nose is a symptom (i.e. the runny nose is evidence for an allergy). Ockham's Razor indicates that you should first test the simplest explanation, i.e. it is the common cold, before trying to determine if the more complex explanations apply, e.g. it is an allergy. This is the meaning behind the simplest explanation is the more likely explanation.

So in the case of the intelligence hypothesis, science does not reject the hypothesis because of lack of evidence (which is an incoherent concept in the absence of an experiment). Rather, it considers intelligence to be a more complex explanation (because it introduces an additional unknown) and unconsciousness to be the simpler explanation (because it has one less unknown). So the most likely explanation (not necessarily the correct explanation) is that there is no intelligence. More complex explanations are still be used by science. Science doesn't reject hypotheses because they are complex.

To be clear, the statement, "There is no evidence" is meaningless in the absence of an experiment, which is why it has to be constantly pointed out to people that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People are often mistaken about what constitutes evidence of absence. A person will often think that because he personally hasn't observed something or because science hasn't conducted an experiment about a thing, that it constitutes evidence of absence. This is not a conclusion that follows logically or scientifically. The most likely (simplest) explanation is that these people are mistaken (Ockham's Razor).

How ridiculous.

First, I never stated Ockham's Razor - just invoked it - but here it is: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate."

Second, reading the above it is clear it is you that has misunderstood it. Notice there is no mention of simplicity or complexity - although it is how it is often commonly understood. It simply speaks of necessity. One should not multiply entities (e.g. hypotheses) unnecessarily.

And do you really think that hypotheses for which there is no evidence at all can be necessary? In science, of all disciplines? That is simply mad. According to such an interpretation, science should admit the role of invisible pink unicorns in quantum theory, because there is no evidence for them.

Lastly, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a stupid statement, taken in isolation. It most certainly can be and frequently is. What it ought to say is that absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

 

[Polymath257]

How ridiculous.

First, I never stated Ockham's Razor - just invoked it - but here it is: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate."

Second, reading the above it is clear it is you that has misunderstood it. Notice there is no mention of simplicity or complexity - although it is how it is often commonly understood. It simply speaks of necessity. One should not multiply entities (e.g. hypotheses) unnecessarily.

And do you really think that hypotheses for which there is no evidence at all can be necessary? In science, of all disciplines? That is simply mad. According to such an interpretation, science should admit the role of invisible pink unicorns in quantum theory, because there is no evidence for them.

Lastly, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a stupid statement, taken in isolation. It most certainly can be and frequently is. What it ought to say is that absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

More specifically, absence of evidence *is* proof of absence when the conditions are such that evidence of existence should be guaranteed.

So, for example, the absence of evidence for an elephant in my room *is* sufficient to deduce that there is no elephant in my room. Any elephant would produce abundant evidence of its existence.

There are a great many situations in science where the existence of something is guaranteed to give evidence of its existence. In those cases, an absence of evidence can, in deed, be evidence of absence.

 

[exchemist]

More specifically, absence of evidence *is* proof of absence when the conditions are such that evidence of existence should be guaranteed.

So, for example, the absence of evidence for an elephant in my room *is* sufficient to deduce that there is no elephant in my room. Any elephant would produce abundant evidence of its existence.

There are a great many situations in science where the existence of something is guaranteed to give evidence of its existence. In those cases, an absence of evidence can, in deed, be evidence of absence.

Nice one about the elephant.

So even my "weak" version of the saying is too generous.

 

[Ponder This]

How ridiculous.

First, I never stated Ockham's Razor - just invoked it - but here it is: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate."

Second, reading the above it is clear it is you that has misunderstood it. Notice there is no mention of simplicity or complexity - although it is how it is often commonly understood. It simply speaks of necessity. One should not multiply entities (e.g. hypotheses) unnecessarily.

And do you really think that hypotheses for which there is no evidence at all can be necessary? In science, of all disciplines? That is simply mad. According to such an interpretation, science should admit the role of invisible pink unicorns in quantum theory, because there is no evidence for them.

Lastly, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a stupid statement, taken in isolation. It most certainly can be and frequently is. What it ought to say is that absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Multiple entities is what I meant by simplicity and complexity.
In modern times, we have a similar idea in the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), which we use when designing new systems.

Ockham's razor doesn't state that the presumption of multiple entities is definitely false anymore than KISS states that complex systems definitely don't work.
Ockham's Razor doesn't mean that there are no invisible pink unicorns.

Ockham's Razor refers to a principle of explanation when you have two or more equally valid explanations. The role of invisible pink unicorns in quantum theory first has to have an equally valid explanation to quantum theory without them. At that point, Ockham's Razor will say that the invisible pink unicorns are not necessary to explain quantum theory (and not that invisible pink unicorns don't exist). If you don't have a valid explanation of quantum theory using invisible pink unicorns, then the reason we reject invisible pink unicorns isn't because of Ockham's Razor, instead we reject them because they give a less valid explanation of quantum theory as opposed to a more valid explanation.

So yes, I do think hypotheses for which there is no evidence at all can be true, and hypotheses that actually fail to explain are indeed unnecessary to explain.

I agree that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" may be a statement that confuses some people and that we may be able to better state the idea better. I use it because it is a common aphorism.

Returning to the key point: Ockham's Razor doesn't make intelligence less valid. Ockham's Razor says intelligence is unnecessary to explain the observed phenomena because we have an equally valid explanation without assuming an intelligence at work (an additional entity). This is why science doesn't include intelligence in their theory while remaining free to use intelligence as a hypothesis for experiments (assuming such an experiment exists). Just like if we were designing a system that worked just as well without an additional entity called 'intelligence' we would KISS and not include intelligence even though the system might still work with the addition of intelligence. We remain free to design systems that also use intelligence.

 

[exchemist]

Multiple entities is what I meant by simplicity and complexity.
In modern times, we have a similar idea in the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), which we use when designing new systems.

Ockham's razor doesn't state that the presumption of multiple entities is definitely false anymore than KISS states that complex systems definitely don't work.
Ockham's Razor doesn't mean that there are no invisible pink unicorns.

Ockham's Razor refers to a principle of explanation when you have two or more equally valid explanations. The role of invisible pink unicorns in quantum theory first has to have an equally valid explanation to quantum theory without them. At that point, Ockham's Razor will say that the invisible pink unicorns are not necessary to explain quantum theory (and not that invisible pink unicorns don't exist). If you don't have a valid explanation of quantum theory using invisible pink unicorns, then the reason we reject invisible pink unicorns isn't because of Ockham's Razor, instead we reject them because they give a less valid explanation of quantum theory as opposed to a more valid explanation.

So yes, I do think hypotheses for which there is no evidence at all can be true, and hypotheses that actually fail to explain are indeed unnecessary to explain.

I agree that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" may be a statement that confuses some people and that we may be able to better state the idea better. I use it because it is a common aphorism.

Returning to the key point: Ockham's Razor doesn't make intelligence less valid. Ockham's Razor says intelligence is unnecessary to explain the observed phenomena because we have an equally valid explanation without assuming an intelligence at work (an additional entity). This is why science doesn't include intelligence in their theory while remaining free to use intelligence as a hypothesis for experiments (assuming such an experiment exists). Just like if we were designing a system that worked just as well without an additional entity called 'intelligence' we would KISS and not include intelligence even though the system might still work with the addition of intelligence. We remain free to design systems that also use intelligence.

You persist in making up bogus constraints for Ockham's Razor. It is as the original Latin says, no more and no less.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of what the goal of science is and what it isn't. It is not a goal of science to determine whether or not God or "an intelligence" [but we know what we really mean, don't we?] exists. There is no "proof" in science, beyond the brute observations themselves. Science is concerned with explanations of nature in terms of nature. To this end it makes predictive models of aspects of nature, based on objective evidence of how nature behaves.

No evidence has been produced for any intervention in nature by some agency exterior to nature, and furthermore the concept has no explanatory value for science. Ergo, according to Ockham's Razor, the hypothesis that such an agency exists is not going to be part of any scientific model. As far as "validity" of a God/intelligence hypothesis, therefore, it is not valid to use it in any scientific model. It is just not part of science.

Where I agree with you is that this is not "proof" that no God/intelligence exists. What people choose to believe for themselves, for other, non-scientific reasons, is entirely up to them and it is not the job of science to pronounce on it.

 

[Ponder This]

You persist in making up bogus constraints for Ockham's Razor. It is as the original Latin says, no more and no less.

Ockham's Razor concerns the necessity of explanation and not the validity of explanation. Always has.

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate."​

 

[exchemist]

Ockham's Razor concerns the necessity of explanation and not the validity of explanation. Always has.

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate."​

You said this: " Ockham's Razor refers to a principle of explanation when you have two or more equally valid explanations."

You've made that up. It applies to any case in which the evidence for a hypothesis can be called into question.

But of course I fully agree it concerns only necessity. The question then becomes why do you draw a distinction between necessity and validity. Can you explain how something can be unnecessary and yet still valid?

 

[Ponder This]

You said this: " Ockham's Razor refers to a principle of explanation when you have two or more equally valid explanations."

You've made that up. It applies to any case in which the evidence for a hypothesis can be called into question.

But of course I fully agree it concerns only necessity. The question then becomes why do you draw a distinction between necessity and validity. Can you explain how something can be unnecessary and yet still valid?

Example's of Ockham's Razor

I linked a list of examples of Ockham's Razor. The first one on the list is:
Event: One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations
a) A moose ran through it
or
b) Some screws fell out of it because it is old

Ockham's Razor says it is unnecessary to posit an additional entity (e.g. the moose) to explain the broken fence post. However, 'a moose ran through it' remains a valid explanation for the broken fence post.

If the explanations aren't equally valid to begin with, then we would favor the more valid explanation (even if the more valid explanation posits additional entities). We wouldn't drop a more valid explanation because of Ockham's Razor. If we did, I would probably call it Ockham's Cleaver or Ockham's Ocular Obscurity and start referring to it as a logical fallacy (as in 'an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name').

 

[exchemist]

Example's of Ockham's Razor

I linked a list of examples of Ockham's Razor. The first one on the list is:
Event: One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations
a) A moose ran through it
or
b) Some screws fell out of it because it is old

Ockham's Razor says it is unnecessary to posit an additional entity (e.g. the moose) to explain the broken fence post. However, 'a moose ran through it' remains a valid explanation for the broken fence post.

If the explanations aren't equally valid to begin with, then we would favor the more valid explanation (even if the more valid explanation posits additional entities). We wouldn't drop a more valid explanation because of Ockham's Razor. If we did, I would probably call it Ockham's Cleaver or Ockham's Ocular Obscurity and start referring to it as a logical fallacy (as in 'an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name').

These examples are all very well but you originally claimed in post 203 that a hypothesis for which there is no evidence at all, viz. one that is as unnecessary as it is possible to imagine, cannot be dismissed by Ockham's Razor. That I find ridiculous.

And now, in post 209, you seem to suggest something equally preposterous: that an unnecessary hypothesis can be valid. Can you explain how this can be?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

It will be as no surprise that I most often consider randomness in the context of biology. I see it as something without pattern or predictability. In experimental design, randomization means that each member of a population has an equal chance of being sampled. Whether it is an actual population of insects or some feature of the organism in study. In terms of evolution, random events can be selected once they occur, but their occurrence is not due to some selective process.

The connotation that comes to mind when using the word accident is one of unintentional and not necessarily random. Since I'm coming to this thread late, you may have discussed this already and I may be waving it in the breeze unnecessarily. But in terms of car accidents, we have enough data to reasonably predict an expected annual number of automobile accidents, injuries and deaths. We can assign a prediction of the property value of damaged property. Even hot spots where accidents are more likely to occur can be identified. What we cannot do is look at a person and tell them that they will have a auto accident on a particular date at a particular time and describe the outcome of that accident. We can look at the driving habits of individuals and determine the likelihood that they will be in an accident based on their record, habits and location. These can even be ranked. So, while an auto accident may be a random event, there are nonrandom features that are associated with it.

All this leads me to conclude that I have a very limited understanding of what randomness means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say an event is random if there is no way to predict the outcome of that specific event given previous events.

I am more than willing to have the *probabilities* and *averages* be predictable. Hence, a coin flip *could* be random.

If it is simply very difficult to predict, but possible, I would consider it chaotic rather than random. Either way could have predictable averages, though.

This sounds like my auto accident example. So maybe I was onto something. Perhaps. You can calculate the probability of heads or tails and calculate the mean, but you cannot know which the next flip will really be? Just that you have this probability that it will be either heads or tails.

So, a series of random events becomes predictable within a degree of certainty when viewed as a population of the same event repeated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Properly speaking, the 'random numbers' generated by computers are called 'pseudo-random' for exactly this reason. It is very, very difficult to produce high quality pseudo-random numbers. Most fail badly with simple statistical tests.

I remember some years ago that it was announced that researchers had figured out a way to generate random numbers from pictures of a bank of lava lamps. I'm not sure how this was done, but it was big news at the time.

 

[Ponder This]

These examples are all very well but you originally claimed in post 203 that a hypothesis for which there is no evidence at all, viz. one that is as unnecessary as it is possible to imagine, cannot be dismissed by Ockham's Razor. That I find ridiculous.

To be clear, I referred to hypotheses for which no experiment has been conducted (hence "no evidence").

And now, in post 209, you seem to suggest something equally preposterous: that an unnecessary hypothesis can be valid. Can you explain how this can be?

Let A be an explanation for C that does not depend on hypothesis H.
Let B be an explanation for C that does depend on hypothesis H.

Is H necessary for explanation A? No. But that means H is 'unnecessary'. *gasp*

But, C is explained by B, means that B is a valid explanation of C!

Does it seem that we have an unnecessary hypothesis that is valid?

I think the problem is that you aren't understanding that Ockham's Razor is about the necessity of entities to (a priori) valid explanations. Ockham's Razor doesn't assert that the entities are valid or invalid.

necessary meaning 'required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential'
and valid meaning 'has a strong basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent'

I gave the example of the moose, whose existence is unnecessary to explain the broken fence post although the assumption of the moose in an explanation remains "just as valid".

"The hypothesis is unnecessary" is not a complete statement.
Question: What is the hypothesis an 'unnecessary' condition for?
Answer: The hypothesis is an unnecessary condition for "every explanation of a thing."
"The hypothesis is valid." is not the same as "The explanation is valid."
A hypothesis is valid if it is true in all interpretations.
An explanation (or argument) is valid if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion (and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid).
So a hypothesis may or may not be true, while the explanation remains valid.
What makes an explanation valid is not the truth value of its premises or its conclusions.

Is the moose necessary?
Is the moose valid?
Why? Why not?

 

[exchemist]

To be clear, I referred to hypotheses for which no experiment has been conducted (hence "no evidence").



Let A be an explanation for C that does not depend on hypothesis H.
Let B be an explanation for C that does depend on hypothesis H.

Is H necessary for explanation A? No. But that means H is 'unnecessary'. *gasp*

But, C is explained by B, means that B is a valid explanation of C!

Does it seem that we have an unnecessary hypothesis that is valid?

I think the problem is that you aren't understanding that Ockham's Razor is about the necessity of entities to (a priori) valid explanations. Ockham's Razor doesn't assert that the entities are valid or invalid.

necessary meaning 'required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential'
and valid meaning 'has a strong basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent'

I gave the example of the moose, whose existence is unnecessary to explain the broken fence post although the assumption of the moose in an explanation remains "just as valid".

"The hypothesis is unnecessary" is not a complete statement.
Question: What is the hypothesis an 'unnecessary' condition for?
Answer: The hypothesis is an unnecessary condition for "every explanation of a thing."
"The hypothesis is valid." is not the same as "The explanation is valid."
A hypothesis is valid if it is true in all interpretations.
An explanation (or argument) is valid if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion (and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid).
So a hypothesis may or may not be true, while the explanation remains valid.
What makes an explanation valid is not the truth value of its premises or its conclusions.

Is the moose necessary?
Is the moose valid?
Why? Why not?

But not only has no experiment been conducted for a supernatural intelligence, it is impossible to devise one. This is because, since a supernatural agency is not subject to any laws of nature, no reproducible pattern can be presumed to result from its supposed effects. So there can be no agreed criteria by which it could be detected.

Testability is a requirement for a hypothesis to be scientific, so it follows that the supernatural intelligence hypothesis cannot be part of science. In other words, from the science perspective specifically, as distinct from any others, it is not valid. This I suspect is the root of our apparent mutual misunderstanding.

From the perspective of the discipline of science, therefore, this hypothesis has neither necessity nor validity. Whereas from the perspective of other disciplines of thought, it may very well be valid.

 

[jhwatts]

Statistically there many many different types of random systems. Most however group random systems as Gaussian or numbers who have a distribution as normal. A bell curve. For example, take many different handfuls of sand and throw them in the air. If you measure the distances of the fallen grains from the origin on the ground and categorize them in groups of like distances from their origins. Plot the number found in each group and you would find they would be distributed as a normal distribution.

However, when you many subsets of random numbers with different statistical properties you get very complex random systems. It is really incorect to group randomness as a single type of behavior. Depending on their statistical properties, random system can behave in a infinite number of possibilities.

 

[Milton Platt]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

Yeah, I've always wondered how we can separate things that are (supposedly) random from things that follow a pattern we don't perceive.

If an event occurs every 10 billion years, it would seem to be a one-off to humans.

 

[Ponder This]

But not only has no experiment been conducted for a supernatural intelligence, it is impossible to devise one. This is because, since a supernatural agency is not subject to any laws of nature, no reproducible pattern can be presumed to result from its supposed effects. So there can be no agreed criteria by which it could be detected.

Testability is a requirement for a hypothesis to be scientific, so it follows that the supernatural intelligence hypothesis cannot be part of science. In other words, from the science perspective specifically, as distinct from any others, it is not valid. This I suspect is the root of our apparent mutual misunderstanding.

From the perspective of the discipline of science, therefore, this hypothesis has neither necessity nor validity. Whereas from the perspective of other disciplines of thought, it may very well be valid.

I don't think you've quite gotten it. Science doesn't have a stance on the validity of untestable hypotheses. It may seem like we are splitting hairs here, but when you declare the hypothesis to be 'not valid' because of the absence of an experiment that tests for it, you simply are not doing science. Science does not assert the invalidity of hypotheses that it does not test for.

We agree that it isn't included in science and the reason it isn't included is because a scientific hypothesis must be testable (or falsifiable). And yes, Ockham's Razor does say the hypothesis is unnecessary. But that is not an assertion about validity of the hypothesis. This is the point we are odds with each other about.

When you say the hypothesis is invalid, then you've gone outside of science in order to make that claim. You're doing something else that isn't science. So you cannot claim your assertion is supported by science. This is what it seems to me that you are trying to do.

Anyway, to bring things back to the question of what is random. I think science uses the term random in reference to certain things beyond control (or prediction). And that intelligence, as understood by science, is a human phenomenon. Whether or not there is an intelligence (or supernatural intelligence), science is going to refer to the events such as mutations as random. Science can even refer to a car being driven through a an intersection by a conscious intelligent human as random if it is outside the scope of control and prediction, yet can influence the outcome of an experiment or the occurrence of an event. For example: someone is measuring the wind speed at the intersection and his results are subject to the random appearance of cars that pass through the intersection.

Randomness is a matter related to observation.