Randomness - What is it?

I suspect this is the case.

Those are not necessary really to consider randomness an illusion since they deal with increasing man's perspective. If you want to say something is random from our perspective, and define randomness in a relative way, then fine, but that's what I mean by illusory.

Mick, then randomness refers to a limited aspect in a system since non-random factors are in the system as well?In other words, the parameters are non-random, but the individual choice or events within those parameters are?

Let me try again being more specific. It doesn't matter if we can ever understand and apply a grand unifying theory. All that would change is our knowledge. It would not make things more or less random. I suppose we could discuss whether a grand, unifying theory exists or could exist as relevant, but even there I am not so sure it matters.On the 2nd point, it doesn't matter ever if we know the exact conditions or not. Something is random or not random regardless. In fact, if knowing the exact conditions means that something is not random, then nothing is random because exact conditions do exist presumably, and the act of knowing doesn't change those conditions....well except maybe with observer/participancy.Now, on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, awhile back I wondered if entanglement has not lessened that somewhat, but we are getting into some sticky areas with QM. Perhaps there is a random element in the universe, but even there rules still apply. My sense is that what will occur can actually be known (for example if we could manipulate time) but that there could well be a random aspect to a degree within a system though that is predominantly non-random. But on the other hand, I would not rule out that there are governing factors deciding the seeming random event, even at the quantum level.The reason this is important, or one reason, is the seeming random "autonomy" as Watson put it has been used to argue that science is incompatible with God and especially a personal God, but the fact is if randomness merely describes our perspective and not an absolute one, then randomness being used to argue against a Being that does not the exact conditions is a major logical fallacy.Let's posit whether randomness exists in an absolute sense. In theology, we consider ideas not just from our perspective but from the perspective of God to the extent of our imagination, sometimes balanced by intution, revelation and reason.And even if one rejects God, if knowing the exact conditions and causes changes something from being random to non-random, then randmoness is an illusory and relative quality and not an absolute one.This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 11:09 PM

Can you offer some evidence or substantiation for your claim here? From the little I have learned on the subject, there appears to be rhyme and reason since there are indeed determining factors to at least some aspects of mutations. For example, there is some evidence of convergent DNA, and I believe some other factors which some have pointed out here.Maybe wk or someone can add some links. So saying all the evidence, without detailing that evidence and in light of there being at least some evidence to the contrary suggests your comment is more what you think must be rather than what is based on evidence.But I could be wrong.....can you elaborate?