Does Evolution Have An Objective?

Given that it seems blindingly obvious that a system that works by obeying a set of unwavering rules is wholly deterministic, you can't just say "it's not" without explaining why.

Maybe I missed the point, but Panda was saying he hadn't made the choices himself, since he had no idea from the algorithms he programmed what choices would be made. They're still deterministic, because the same sequence of inputs would always result in the same outputs.On the wider issue, if you're saying that a deterministic decision isn't a choice, then I don't really see how choice is possible. If something is not determined by the conditions and events leading up to it, then its arbitrary. Does it make more sense to call that a choice?

Maybe this is just a semantic argument, but I think we're looking at this in different ways. The outcome isn't independent of your choice if your choice is predetermined. The outcome is the result of your choice, the point is just that your choice is the result of other factors.You never answered my question earlier. If the choice is not predetermined, how is this in any way more simialr to what we mean when we say 'choice'. Something not dependent on its causes is essentially random, isn't it? I don't know if quantum mechanics change our understanding of this, but in classical physics - yes, that's exactly what would happen. Chaotic systems will behave in exactly the same way from identical starting conditions. The reason we have to treat them as random is because they're incredibly sensitive to the initial starting conditions, and we can't understand them in enough detail to be able to predict what will happen. It's like the example of hitting a billiard ball around on a frictionless table. If we know the angle and force or the hit, we can predict pretty well its path after the first few bounces, but pretty quickly the imprecision in our initial measurement multiplies to the point where we're unable to predict in advance the path of the ball. I remember reading an example from Henri Poincare, who calculated that, by the 20th rebound or so, the gravitational pull from distant objects has to be taken into account to get an accurate figure, but I can't find the source for this now.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.