Reply to comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/science/15patt.html?ex=1402632000&en=0f088716da526c54&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=2

Patterns across entities, themselves improbable and statistical, are, as a result, improbable and statistical; a pattern, because it is based on "ordered" entities that arose from disorder, is a highly improbable "assembly" arising from countless instances of "order-from-disorder." Thinking about it this way, patterns become increasingly awe-inspiring. That so many random events could result in entities similar enough to resemble each other in a defined pattern is amazing. This notion speaks to the effect environmental factors have on "random" motion. For example, temperature in a room will effect the movement of all the water molecules in that room in a similar way, making all the random movement of the molecules to take on certain similarities, or patterns.

I would argue, yes, motion is random even if we can "predict," or approximate it. Molecules do not move similarly of their own accord; no atoms "try" to form patterns. However, we can manipulate and approximate random motion to the effect that it responds to environmental factors.

It is interesting to think about simple patterns that are widely accepted, even admired. The author of the article I posted above talks about ripples, for example. My question is: does a ripple in a lake (a particular pattern) exist outside of my mind? My tentative answer is: no, ripples only exist when I recognize the pattern of little waves radiating from a center-point and call then "ripples." In this way, patterns, which consist of a specific trait and the exhibition of that trait over many entities, involve an extra player: me.