The forces that "chop off" the Gaussian distribution are
"randomly" generated (i.e. cannot be predicted), and are
not the work of any intelligent agency...that is why
ultimately natural selection is "not directed"
But, my guess is that words get in the way of what we are
trying to say. For example, is the universe really random?
Just cause Heisenberg, and Schrodinger showed us that we
have to use mathematical formulae to estimate where particles
are, does that mean they conform exactly
to a mathematical model?
If labor statistics show that there is a depression, did
you have to lose your job?
Just because we don't know how things work, does that mean
they are random?
I would love to see an essay on whether there really is
such a thing as "randomness"....
As another example,, with nuclear decay, each radioactive atom decays supposedly
spontaneously and on a large level, in a group of them,
a certain amount, let's say 1/2 of them will decay over a
certain amount of time (half-life)...But what is it that
makes Atom A decay, but not Atom B? My guess, is that we
need to know more about matter to answer that question,
and no appeal to the "randomness" of the process appears
to be adequate. Could it be, that in an environment which
has lots of X-rays, neutrinos, fast neutrinos, free protons,
etc, the half life of some radioactive material could be
different? If that is so, then the "random" decay of these
elements could be brought into question. Any studies out
there?
Assumptions other than "randomness" lead to testable experiments. So far the experiments all come down on the side of "randomness."