Chance, design and artificial life

In previous posts in this blog I have mentioned my experiments on artificial life: the simulation in a computer of processes similar to those that take place in living beings. Artificial life should not be confused with synthetic life: construction of artificial living beings in the laboratory.

One of the most used tools in artificial life (and in other related fields) are genetic algorithms, which simulate biological evolution within the computer, and make it act on the entities that are the subjects of the research. In these experiments, a mixture of chance and necessity (the title of Monod’s book mentioned in the previous post) is used. Chance is usually applied with a pseudo-random number generator that modifies the operation of the rest of the algorithm, which represents necessity.

Chance or pseudo-chance?

Gregory Chaitin

In computer programming, certain algorithms (called pseudo-random) generate series of numbers that meet the conditions required by statistics to decide on the randomness of a sequence. These algorithms are used frequently to simulate chance.

However, these algorithms have been designed by someone (the programmer who invented them). In fact, they are not usually random, in the sense that, if they are executed several times in a row, they always give the same results.

We have a similar case with the digits of p. Ten trillion digits of p are currently known, and their number is constantly growing. So far, the digits of p have met all statistical randomization tests. However, it is evident that they cannot be truly random, that they are designed. There are simple algorithms that generate them one after another, in the correct order.

Let us go back to the mental experiment of the previous post in this blog. If intelligent beings were to emerge in an artificial life experiment,

Would these beings be able to distinguish between chance and design as the origin of their own existence?

Chance or design?

Tree of life

In this context, we must distinguish three things:

1. The scientific theory of evolution, which is strongly supported by data from other sciences, such as embryology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, or molecular biology (DNA analysis).
2. The claim that evolution is a consequence of pure chance, which is not a scientific theory, but philosophical, although its supporters claim that it is scientific.
3. The assertion that evolution is an example of design, which is not a scientific theory either, but philosophical. The supporters of intelligent design argue that it is scientific.

To solve this dilemma we would have to answer one of the following questions:

•         Is there a way to prove scientifically that evolution is a consequence of chance, rather than design?

•         Is there a way to prove scientifically that evolution is a consequence of design, rather than chance?