RANDOMNESS IS AN AGENT FOR CHANGE
We tend to view the world from a deterministic perspective and take comfort in the notion that things happen for a reason. We feel that there must be a meaning or a purpose in life, and that our experiences are somehow coordinated toward that purpose. If we are religious, we may interpret this purpose as God’s will. Even those of us who do not rely on God often have a deterministic perspective on life and on the workings of the natural world. Our evolved capacity to affect change through conscious action has wired our brains to connect actions with deliberate causes. There is a strong tendency to project our personal experience with deliberate cause and effect onto the world around us.
In reality, our deliberate actions are constantly buffeted by unexpected, random events that lead us off in unexpected directions. Randomness, also known as fluctuations, takes everything from atoms to genes to people in new directions. Fluctuations are random deviations from average conditions. The average speed of the cars on a motorway may be 70 miles per hour, but individual speeds can vary from this average. These are fluctuations. Most fluctuations are small; most cars are within 5 miles per hour above or below the average. Large fluctuations, cars traveling 40 miles per hour or 100 miles per hour, are rare, but do exist. Large fluctuations are more likely to bring about change in the status quo than cars traveling near the average speed. In this example, they are more likely to cause a crash.
But the changes brought about by fluctuations are not necessarily bad changes. The molecules in a cup of water are wiggling and zooming around on a microscopic level. We feel the speed of their motions as the temperature of the water; faster motions feel hotter. However, the water molecules actually have a range of speeds, and the temperature reflects the average of this range. Faster or slower than average molecular speeds are fluctuations. If we take the deliberate action of putting the water in the freezer, we are interacting with the spectrum of random fluctuations; the slower than average molecules initiate the transformation from water to ice. If we heat the water, the faster than average molecules initiate the transformation from water to steam. Fluctuations from the average enable change.
What if there are no fluctuations or fluctuations are very small? It is possible to suppress fluctuations in the water by purifying it and by isolating it from vibrations. With all the water molecules behaving nearly identically, the capacity for change is reduced, and it is possible to supercool the water so that it remains liquid below it normal freezing temperature, or to superheat it so that it remains liquid above its normal boiling point. If fluctuations are then introduced, for instance by tapping the side of the cup, supercooled water will freeze instantly and superheated water will vaporize explosively.
Random fluctuations are an agent for change in virtually all natural processes. For instance, atoms and molecules could not combine via chemical reactions to form the materials of our universe and our world, including living things such as ourselves, without random fluctuations. Chemical transformations require atoms and molecules to collide with one another with enough energy to combine and form new substances. Atoms and molecules are constantly vibrating, and zooming around in random directions with a distribution of speeds. Just like the boiling of water, it is the molecules with higher than average speeds that are more likely to bang into one another with sufficient energy to react chemically. Without random fluctuations the universe would have remained forever a featureless broth of non-interacting particles: no stars, no planets, no water molecules, no life. Fluctuations are instrumental in processes of nature, ranging from the chemistry underlying human consciousness to the weather. The world would be very different, and would not be suitable for life, if not for the capacity for change introduced by randomness.
In reality, our deliberate actions are constantly buffeted by unexpected, random events that lead us off in unexpected directions. Randomness, also known as fluctuations, takes everything from atoms to genes to people in new directions. Fluctuations are random deviations from average conditions. The average speed of the cars on a motorway may be 70 miles per hour, but individual speeds can vary from this average. These are fluctuations. Most fluctuations are small; most cars are within 5 miles per hour above or below the average. Large fluctuations, cars traveling 40 miles per hour or 100 miles per hour, are rare, but do exist. Large fluctuations are more likely to bring about change in the status quo than cars traveling near the average speed. In this example, they are more likely to cause a crash.
But the changes brought about by fluctuations are not necessarily bad changes. The molecules in a cup of water are wiggling and zooming around on a microscopic level. We feel the speed of their motions as the temperature of the water; faster motions feel hotter. However, the water molecules actually have a range of speeds, and the temperature reflects the average of this range. Faster or slower than average molecular speeds are fluctuations. If we take the deliberate action of putting the water in the freezer, we are interacting with the spectrum of random fluctuations; the slower than average molecules initiate the transformation from water to ice. If we heat the water, the faster than average molecules initiate the transformation from water to steam. Fluctuations from the average enable change.
What if there are no fluctuations or fluctuations are very small? It is possible to suppress fluctuations in the water by purifying it and by isolating it from vibrations. With all the water molecules behaving nearly identically, the capacity for change is reduced, and it is possible to supercool the water so that it remains liquid below it normal freezing temperature, or to superheat it so that it remains liquid above its normal boiling point. If fluctuations are then introduced, for instance by tapping the side of the cup, supercooled water will freeze instantly and superheated water will vaporize explosively.
Random fluctuations are an agent for change in virtually all natural processes. For instance, atoms and molecules could not combine via chemical reactions to form the materials of our universe and our world, including living things such as ourselves, without random fluctuations. Chemical transformations require atoms and molecules to collide with one another with enough energy to combine and form new substances. Atoms and molecules are constantly vibrating, and zooming around in random directions with a distribution of speeds. Just like the boiling of water, it is the molecules with higher than average speeds that are more likely to bang into one another with sufficient energy to react chemically. Without random fluctuations the universe would have remained forever a featureless broth of non-interacting particles: no stars, no planets, no water molecules, no life. Fluctuations are instrumental in processes of nature, ranging from the chemistry underlying human consciousness to the weather. The world would be very different, and would not be suitable for life, if not for the capacity for change introduced by randomness.
Fluctuations are important to the biological world in an immediate sense because processes integral to life–such as photosynthesis, metabolic reactions, and genetic reproduction–require molecular-level chemical and physical change, which is driven by fluctuations. However, random deviations from the average have a much more striking and visible impact on the biological world by creating the staggering diversity of life through natural selection. Every structural difference amongst all living things, from bacteria to trees to people, arose from a random event, a genetic mutation, a fluctuation. There have been vastly more such mutation-fluctuations then all the structural differences among all the species that currently exist since only a relatively few are amplified through natural selection. Most genetic fluctuations disappear because they decrease survivability or, even if advantageous, because some other random occurrence–such as a drought or the appearance of a hungry predator–wipes them out before they can be passed on.
In the sphere of human activity, the fluctuations that permeate people’s daily lives play a prominent role. Chance meetings, unexpected events, and accidents have a profound influence in individual lives as well as the development and fate of civilizations, economies, and ideas such as religions. The specific details of these events are random, but the fact that they are always occurring is a constant. The interactions of our deliberate intentions with this sea of random fluctuations are the primary drivers that take us in new directions. And, as with the world of atoms, molecules and genes, fluctuations in human events are necessary to keep civilization changing and moving forward.
Individual fluctuations are numerous beyond counting in human activity. As you go through your average day, you are constantly meeting other people and encountering situations that you could not have predicted beforehand. These include little details such as who sat next to you on a bus, whether or not you got caught in a traffic jam, and so on. Each of these individual happenings is unique and unanticipated, and thus, from your point of view, represents a fluctuation. To get some idea of the staggering number of possible random outcomes in human activity, consider that billions of people worldwide are simultaneously bathed in a daily soup of thousands of fluctuations.
Most fluctuations are small and are forgotten almost immediately; they are unimportant and produce no lasting effect: That car I just passed on the highway was red as opposed to some other color. But it makes no difference. I have already forgotten. To use the mathematical language which describes fluctuations in the physical sciences, they are small in amplitude, and are damped (i.e. their importance or strength diminishes rapidly). Some fluctuations are small, but chance amplifies their importance; the person who randomly sits next to you on a bus is an old classmate you have not seen in twenty years. Or, you strike up a conversation with the stranger sitting across the aisle from you on an airplane. You hit it off and eventually get married. In these cases a resonance, a match or fit, magnifies an initially small happening into something of greater amplitude or importance.
Most fluctuations are small in amplitude and damped. A few small fluctuations resonate with us and our situation, but we tend to notice these resonances and ascribe to them importance far beyond the random events that they truly are. We are bombarded by thousands of random details of daily life. Yet, when one of these chance occurrences leads to something more, we tend to view this as fate, providence, or luck. These three terms all suggest a belief in a higher power that is directing these events. The workings of the human mind make such conclusions irresistible. Ten thousand small amplitude fluctuations sail by our senses in a blur like the faces of strangers we pass on a busy city street. We hardly notice them. But when something resonates, we stop and focus on it. We marvel at it. Perhaps, we even attribute it to the will of God. However, such coincidences do not require divine intervention. If one experiences enough random events, statistics dictate that eventually one will hit upon a resonance.
Of course, there are also randomly occurring fluctuations of a much stronger, higher amplitude variety. They do not need a resonance to profoundly influence events. They are powerful enough to dominate by themselves. Examples of these include disasters, both natural and man-made: earthquakes, floods, city-engulfing fires, terrorist attacks, dinosaur-obliterating asteroid impacts, and more. They also include unexpected important discoveries such as gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848 and a New World rather than a new route to India in 1492. Clearly, and perhaps fortunately, such strong fluctuations are rare. In fact, the stronger they are, the rarer they are. The science of statistical mechanics, a fundamental underpinning of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry, allows the probability of a particular event or fluctuation to be determined based on its strength, and indeed strong fluctuations are exceedingly rare while small ones are numerous beyond counting. This analysis holds rigorously in the world of atoms and molecules, but applying it in the arena of human interactions, which are much more difficult to quantify, may be hopeless. However, observation indicates that it is true that small event fluctuations are numerous and earth shattering random events are much rarer.
The world around us is constantly changing and developing as a result of a synergy between intentional action and randomness. The pace of change is usually measured enough for us to keep up because small fluctuations are much more numerous than very powerful ones. When we take deliberate action, the outcome is influenced by the fluctuations that surround us. Unexpected random chance profoundly affects our lives and the course of history.
In the sphere of human activity, the fluctuations that permeate people’s daily lives play a prominent role. Chance meetings, unexpected events, and accidents have a profound influence in individual lives as well as the development and fate of civilizations, economies, and ideas such as religions. The specific details of these events are random, but the fact that they are always occurring is a constant. The interactions of our deliberate intentions with this sea of random fluctuations are the primary drivers that take us in new directions. And, as with the world of atoms, molecules and genes, fluctuations in human events are necessary to keep civilization changing and moving forward.
Individual fluctuations are numerous beyond counting in human activity. As you go through your average day, you are constantly meeting other people and encountering situations that you could not have predicted beforehand. These include little details such as who sat next to you on a bus, whether or not you got caught in a traffic jam, and so on. Each of these individual happenings is unique and unanticipated, and thus, from your point of view, represents a fluctuation. To get some idea of the staggering number of possible random outcomes in human activity, consider that billions of people worldwide are simultaneously bathed in a daily soup of thousands of fluctuations.
Most fluctuations are small and are forgotten almost immediately; they are unimportant and produce no lasting effect: That car I just passed on the highway was red as opposed to some other color. But it makes no difference. I have already forgotten. To use the mathematical language which describes fluctuations in the physical sciences, they are small in amplitude, and are damped (i.e. their importance or strength diminishes rapidly). Some fluctuations are small, but chance amplifies their importance; the person who randomly sits next to you on a bus is an old classmate you have not seen in twenty years. Or, you strike up a conversation with the stranger sitting across the aisle from you on an airplane. You hit it off and eventually get married. In these cases a resonance, a match or fit, magnifies an initially small happening into something of greater amplitude or importance.
Most fluctuations are small in amplitude and damped. A few small fluctuations resonate with us and our situation, but we tend to notice these resonances and ascribe to them importance far beyond the random events that they truly are. We are bombarded by thousands of random details of daily life. Yet, when one of these chance occurrences leads to something more, we tend to view this as fate, providence, or luck. These three terms all suggest a belief in a higher power that is directing these events. The workings of the human mind make such conclusions irresistible. Ten thousand small amplitude fluctuations sail by our senses in a blur like the faces of strangers we pass on a busy city street. We hardly notice them. But when something resonates, we stop and focus on it. We marvel at it. Perhaps, we even attribute it to the will of God. However, such coincidences do not require divine intervention. If one experiences enough random events, statistics dictate that eventually one will hit upon a resonance.
Of course, there are also randomly occurring fluctuations of a much stronger, higher amplitude variety. They do not need a resonance to profoundly influence events. They are powerful enough to dominate by themselves. Examples of these include disasters, both natural and man-made: earthquakes, floods, city-engulfing fires, terrorist attacks, dinosaur-obliterating asteroid impacts, and more. They also include unexpected important discoveries such as gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848 and a New World rather than a new route to India in 1492. Clearly, and perhaps fortunately, such strong fluctuations are rare. In fact, the stronger they are, the rarer they are. The science of statistical mechanics, a fundamental underpinning of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry, allows the probability of a particular event or fluctuation to be determined based on its strength, and indeed strong fluctuations are exceedingly rare while small ones are numerous beyond counting. This analysis holds rigorously in the world of atoms and molecules, but applying it in the arena of human interactions, which are much more difficult to quantify, may be hopeless. However, observation indicates that it is true that small event fluctuations are numerous and earth shattering random events are much rarer.
The world around us is constantly changing and developing as a result of a synergy between intentional action and randomness. The pace of change is usually measured enough for us to keep up because small fluctuations are much more numerous than very powerful ones. When we take deliberate action, the outcome is influenced by the fluctuations that surround us. Unexpected random chance profoundly affects our lives and the course of history.
STRUCTURE FROM RANDOMNESS
It may seem illogical that randomness could be the driver behind the development of ordered, complex structures like plants, animals, and humans. The reason why structure can arise from randomness is that randomness is not necessarily the same thing as chaos. While chaos is a complete lack of any type of predictability or order, randomness is governed by rules of probability.
A familiar example of a random process is the rolling of a pair of dice. The sum of the two dice is a number between 2 and 12 and the occurrence of these sums follows the distribution of probabilities shown in Figure 1.
An individual roll of the dice is random, and if the dice are fair there is no way to predict the outcome. However, the non-equal distribution of probabilities means that accurate predictions can be made about the relative numbers of different outcomes one would obtain for many rolls of the dice. The larger the number of rolls, the more accurate the predictions become. This is an example of structured randomness. First of all, the results are all of a common predictable type: the sum of numbers on two dice. Second, this sum will always be between 2 and 12, and it will statistically follow a known probability distribution. This situation is to be contrasted with chaos, in which a roll of the dice might yield 426, a poker hand, or a nuclear explosion (i.e. total unpredictability).
The structured probability distributions in casino games allow the house to always come out ahead, because it has staked out higher probability positions for itself, provided a large number of games are played. Random events with unequal probability distributions lead to the emergence of persistent structure in the systems they control. In the case of gambling, this structure is a huge worldwide industry in cities such as Las Vegas and Macau. The fact that any individual random event can produce any possible outcome, even the most unlikely, is an agent for transformation and change. A gambler may strike it rich by betting big on a low probability result. Although this is rare compared to the number of losers, the huge number of games played guarantees that there are always some whose lives are transformed by a big win.
A familiar example of a random process is the rolling of a pair of dice. The sum of the two dice is a number between 2 and 12 and the occurrence of these sums follows the distribution of probabilities shown in Figure 1.
An individual roll of the dice is random, and if the dice are fair there is no way to predict the outcome. However, the non-equal distribution of probabilities means that accurate predictions can be made about the relative numbers of different outcomes one would obtain for many rolls of the dice. The larger the number of rolls, the more accurate the predictions become. This is an example of structured randomness. First of all, the results are all of a common predictable type: the sum of numbers on two dice. Second, this sum will always be between 2 and 12, and it will statistically follow a known probability distribution. This situation is to be contrasted with chaos, in which a roll of the dice might yield 426, a poker hand, or a nuclear explosion (i.e. total unpredictability).
The structured probability distributions in casino games allow the house to always come out ahead, because it has staked out higher probability positions for itself, provided a large number of games are played. Random events with unequal probability distributions lead to the emergence of persistent structure in the systems they control. In the case of gambling, this structure is a huge worldwide industry in cities such as Las Vegas and Macau. The fact that any individual random event can produce any possible outcome, even the most unlikely, is an agent for transformation and change. A gambler may strike it rich by betting big on a low probability result. Although this is rare compared to the number of losers, the huge number of games played guarantees that there are always some whose lives are transformed by a big win.
To illustrate how randomness based on a distribution of probabilities can give rise to structure, consider the following simple game:
(1) Repeatedly roll a pair of dice and plot the frequency of occurrence of their sums on a graph.
(2) Whenever snake eyes—2— is rolled, shift all the numbers on the horizontal axis to the right by a number determined by another roll of the two dice.
(3) Go back to Step (1).
The result of applying these rules for about 150 rolls is shown in Figure 2. A clear structure has emerged, consisting of roughly, equally spaced clumps, which are higher in the middle and lower on their sides. Of course, this is a trivial example and thus is very limited in the degree of complexity it can generate. However, it is clear that structure can be generated by a random process, as long as that randomness follows a structured distribution of probabilities.
(1) Repeatedly roll a pair of dice and plot the frequency of occurrence of their sums on a graph.
(2) Whenever snake eyes—2— is rolled, shift all the numbers on the horizontal axis to the right by a number determined by another roll of the two dice.
(3) Go back to Step (1).
The result of applying these rules for about 150 rolls is shown in Figure 2. A clear structure has emerged, consisting of roughly, equally spaced clumps, which are higher in the middle and lower on their sides. Of course, this is a trivial example and thus is very limited in the degree of complexity it can generate. However, it is clear that structure can be generated by a random process, as long as that randomness follows a structured distribution of probabilities.
Now consider biological evolution. Mutations are random changes in the genetic code brought about by damage to DNA molecules or mistakes in the processes by which DNA is replicated. These mutation-producing processes are chemical reactions that are governed by probability distributions; the molecules involved must come together with a certain amount of energy—the activation energy—in order to react. Basically, they need to collide with enough speed to stick together and become something different, otherwise they bounce apart unchanged. The fact that distributions of molecular motion, such as Figure 3, include some high energy (speed) molecules enables reactions leading to mutations. However, these distributions do not specify which molecules specifically are the average-energy ones or which are the high-energy ones; the partitioning of the energy among all the molecules in the system is random. Thus the reaction leading to a mutation occurs at a random location in the genetic code. Radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays, also can produce mutations, but the processes are still chemical reactions—initiated by the radiation—and they are still governed by probability distributions. A gamma ray as it passes through the body interacts with many molecules; some react and some are unchanged. The location of the mutation depends on statistical distributions similar to Figure 3, and thus is once again random.
When a genetic mutation occurs, it potentially alters a protein, but which protein this is and its function are random because the location of the mutation in the genetic code is random. As a result of the change to the protein the organism’s structure, behavior, disease resistance, etc. may change. Finally, natural selection is also influenced by randomness and probability. The impact of a disease or a predator on a population of animals is statistical. Predators are wandering around looking for something to eat, and the prey animals are trying to avoid the predators. There is a certain probability that a prey animal will be eaten before it gets a chance to grow up and reproduce. A mutation could alter this probability, making it either more likely or less likely the prey animal will be caught, thus creating an evolutionary pressure either favoring or disfavoring the mutation. Natural selection is subject to the influence of randomness, probability, and fluctuations. A favorable mutation does not guarantee survival. It just increases the odds. But, like a game of dice, if there are a large number of creatures, a large number of mutations, and a long period of time, order will arise around attributes that are favored by the probability distributions for the biochemical processes involved and by their effect on the probability of survival.
When a genetic mutation occurs, it potentially alters a protein, but which protein this is and its function are random because the location of the mutation in the genetic code is random. As a result of the change to the protein the organism’s structure, behavior, disease resistance, etc. may change. Finally, natural selection is also influenced by randomness and probability. The impact of a disease or a predator on a population of animals is statistical. Predators are wandering around looking for something to eat, and the prey animals are trying to avoid the predators. There is a certain probability that a prey animal will be eaten before it gets a chance to grow up and reproduce. A mutation could alter this probability, making it either more likely or less likely the prey animal will be caught, thus creating an evolutionary pressure either favoring or disfavoring the mutation. Natural selection is subject to the influence of randomness, probability, and fluctuations. A favorable mutation does not guarantee survival. It just increases the odds. But, like a game of dice, if there are a large number of creatures, a large number of mutations, and a long period of time, order will arise around attributes that are favored by the probability distributions for the biochemical processes involved and by their effect on the probability of survival.
COMPUTER SIMULATIONS II
Since God is a creature of the human mind, concepts of how God may have created the world and the diversity of living things reflect the understanding of the faithful. In ancient times, people devised creation myths in which the gods created the heavens, sea, land, animals, and humans. Literal believers continue to rely on this explanation despite the fact that it represents a level of sophistication out of the Stone Age or Bronze Age at best. A feedback loop has been established in which ignorant people dream up an ignorant God, a God that can think of no better way to create the universe than by brute force specification of every detail. Clinging to this simple narrative prevents people from trying to understand what objective observation and reasoning has taught humanity about the natural world since the Bronze Age. This lack of understanding perpetuates the ignorance of the God that these people think into existence.
Imagine, once again, that we are cellular automatons in a computer simulation, created by a Programmer. The members of the Church of Electronic Noise believe that the Programmer is Himself a piece of computer code, like themselves, but with omnipotent powers. Early on, they believed that the Programmer lived on the E: drive, but explorers made an expedition to the E: drive and found no sign of Him. Eventually, the Church realized that since Electronic Noise permeates their entire universe, then the Programmer Himself also permeates the entire universe. He is everywhere and within each and every one of them. The Church teaches that the Programmer has personally specified every bit of data that makes up their universe. He even controls the Electronic Noise. It is not random. It is his way of speaking to his people.
Scientists discovered vast files of backed-up data on the F and G drives and were able to partially reconstruct how the people and everything in their world had evolved over many, many processor cycles. They discovered that a combination of rules governing the flow of data and random events that introduce new directions were critical to this development. They discovered that the best, new randomly generated changes to their bits and bytes—those that most increased speed and efficiency—replicated fastest and eventually came to dominate their population.
The Church of Electronic Noise denounced the new scientific findings and told the people that the backup files were fakes, put there by the Anti-Programmer to confuse the people and lead them away from the true path.
Some scientists, who were doing their own computer simulations, spoke up and said that they would never think of specifying every detail of the worlds they were generating.* This was far too much work. It was much more efficient to let the simulations evolve under the influence of rules, random processes and probability distributions that they supplied at the outset. Why would anyone be so stupid as to write down every bit and byte of data when choice of the right parameters and the operation of a random number generator can allow the world to assemble itself? Of course, because of the influence of randomness, when they ran their simulations multiple times, things develop differently each time. But, because structures generated by randomness reflect the governing probability distributions, the end results of separate simulations were more similar than they are different. Based on these observations, some scientists concluded that if the Programmer exists then He was indirectly creating the world by building the right processes and probabilities into His program and then just letting the program run by itself. Others, also influenced by scientific observation, went a step further and assert that there was no need for a Programmer to specify these things, which as far as they can tell are just there.
However, to definitively declare that there is no Programmer is as much a statement of unfounded surety, as much a statement of faith, as to say that there is a Programmer. Perhaps a few of the automatons will find an odd satisfaction in the truth of Unknowability.
* Here we are postulating nested simulations. The automatons of one simulation develop the technology to construct computers and run their own simulations within the simulation. Despite having said in “What If We Were Cellular Automata?” that contemplating this scenario was mental masturbation, we are going with it here.
Imagine, once again, that we are cellular automatons in a computer simulation, created by a Programmer. The members of the Church of Electronic Noise believe that the Programmer is Himself a piece of computer code, like themselves, but with omnipotent powers. Early on, they believed that the Programmer lived on the E: drive, but explorers made an expedition to the E: drive and found no sign of Him. Eventually, the Church realized that since Electronic Noise permeates their entire universe, then the Programmer Himself also permeates the entire universe. He is everywhere and within each and every one of them. The Church teaches that the Programmer has personally specified every bit of data that makes up their universe. He even controls the Electronic Noise. It is not random. It is his way of speaking to his people.
Scientists discovered vast files of backed-up data on the F and G drives and were able to partially reconstruct how the people and everything in their world had evolved over many, many processor cycles. They discovered that a combination of rules governing the flow of data and random events that introduce new directions were critical to this development. They discovered that the best, new randomly generated changes to their bits and bytes—those that most increased speed and efficiency—replicated fastest and eventually came to dominate their population.
The Church of Electronic Noise denounced the new scientific findings and told the people that the backup files were fakes, put there by the Anti-Programmer to confuse the people and lead them away from the true path.
Some scientists, who were doing their own computer simulations, spoke up and said that they would never think of specifying every detail of the worlds they were generating.* This was far too much work. It was much more efficient to let the simulations evolve under the influence of rules, random processes and probability distributions that they supplied at the outset. Why would anyone be so stupid as to write down every bit and byte of data when choice of the right parameters and the operation of a random number generator can allow the world to assemble itself? Of course, because of the influence of randomness, when they ran their simulations multiple times, things develop differently each time. But, because structures generated by randomness reflect the governing probability distributions, the end results of separate simulations were more similar than they are different. Based on these observations, some scientists concluded that if the Programmer exists then He was indirectly creating the world by building the right processes and probabilities into His program and then just letting the program run by itself. Others, also influenced by scientific observation, went a step further and assert that there was no need for a Programmer to specify these things, which as far as they can tell are just there.
However, to definitively declare that there is no Programmer is as much a statement of unfounded surety, as much a statement of faith, as to say that there is a Programmer. Perhaps a few of the automatons will find an odd satisfaction in the truth of Unknowability.
* Here we are postulating nested simulations. The automatons of one simulation develop the technology to construct computers and run their own simulations within the simulation. Despite having said in “What If We Were Cellular Automata?” that contemplating this scenario was mental masturbation, we are going with it here.