For a regularity to be broken, the phenomenon causing this regularity should be sentient to break the regularity in an intelligently chosen way. It doesn't matter how sentient are neurons, they don't affect anything and might as well be absent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune - what neurons did there?
This stability, as anarchic as it is with that randomness, still within reach of our finite minds to understand that it isn’t totally random, however utterly random it may appear to our mind, such an explicit and confined loop, why should such a thing ever be unpredictable?
Some will argue that simple .randomnesss() is the thing that mindfucks you. But plenty are gifted to not be perturbed by randomness, that even in the noise they can seek out a truth.
Hah. Yeah, why would magically improbable things emerge out of a clear cut predictable system, like the for loop I defined above, which to the naive will seem infinitely impossible to predict because I increased the domain to randomness.
Somewhere here, God laughs. I write jokes for the divine, I never thought that’d be me, hah!
——
I believe Christ speaks to programmers. We have insight into design and big systems.
God is Good.
Therefore, those who were gifted the training to understand design, should take up the mantle.
Lord have mercy, grace us, this place has been hollow of practical religious men and women for quite some time. May god bless this place with more leaders of the right soul.
Randomness/Chance itself is amenable to laws by which we can estimate its bounds. In one sense everything is chance since the deterministic laws themselves operate within approximation bounds. When the approximation bound in the effect is similar in magnitude to that in the cause and both are very small, we call it "deterministic" whereas when the approximation bound in the effect is much larger than that in the cause for no discernible reason we say "chance" is operating.
