|
It occurs to me that perhaps an analysis of what "randomness" means
would be a useful exercise. The words "random" and "nonsequitur" have semantic
properties in common. Both describe something specific to human perception. I've
often thought that the human mind is, among other things, a
pattern-sifter. Some observable that does not seem to fit any pattern
is an "anomaly" and tends to grab our attention. There are reasons why our
attention is riveted by "random" behavior: It's not "normal". In other words, we
recognize that patterns are the norm in our perception of the universe. All
predators are attracted to behavior which deviates from "normal patterns"-- it
usually means something. (The fact that behavior which deviates from "normal"
patterns means something is, itself, a pattern.) In living things,
random behavior is a property of sickness or mutation. To a classical physicist,
the behavior of living systems seems anomalous-- random. It deviates from the
perceived norm. My father believed that this conclusion was purely an artifact
of using too limited a set of observables on which to build pattern
rules.
Thus, "randomness" depends on the context. It describes a "real"
condition, but only within that specific context. What appears random, locally,
can be part of a larger pattern. Religions are built on this phenomenon. The
statement"God has a plan" is merely the human hope that the local randomness of
"meaningless" bad stuff that happens in the world is but a part of a much
larger, better pattern of "good". The notion of "fate" is a recognition that
what seems random in the short term often shows itself to be part of a larger
pattern in a longer view. So, it is clear that one of the contexts that the
quality of "randomness" depends upon is some element
of TIME.
Judith
|