> I think you are equivocating between the laws that govern material interaction and things that interact with matter. They are not the same thing. The laws of

> I think you are equivocating between the laws that govern material interaction and things that interact with matter. They are not the same thing. The laws of physics are developed by breaking matter down to its most uniform and granular components, and then characterizing their interaction. An immaterial soul would not be captured by such an analysis, but its interaction with matter could still be empirically identified. If an "immaterial soul" interacted with matter in an empirically identifiable way, it is part of physics. The forces that interact with matter are themselves not made out of matter. To be precise, matter is only that which has a mass, but there are also particles that don't have mass. Their interactions are nevertheless part of physics and we can measure them at least indirectly. They're not abstract constructs, they're very much part of the physical universe. In that sense, perhaps the term "materialism" is misleading, because ultimately physics is about forces, not matter. Remember, I'm not using that term for myself. > However, if there are only a few specific, long coin sequence you are trying to construct, then flipping a coin does not get you there. There are just too many possibilities within a couple hundred coin flips to check within the lifespan of the universe. There isn't just a single coin though. There's about 10^46 molecules in the ocean[1]. That's a lot of interactions over the span of billions of years. > And, if you have one of these sequences, then randomly flipping some of the coins will destroy the sequence. Just think about what happens if you flip random bits in a computer program. For the most part, unless you get really, really lucky, it will destroy the computer program. It depends on the bits flipped. Bits flip all the time[2] and people rarely notice, because they're not necessarily important bits. It also depends on whether the program will abort upon error detection. Without memory protection by the operating system, most programs wouldn't terminate, they'd keep trucking along, perhaps producing some garbage here and there. In fact, the difficult part about memory corruption bugs is that the program often won't terminate until well after the corruption has taken place. Also, computer programs aren't like organisms exposed to nature. In nature, it's possible that a mutation kills you, but it's far more likely that some physical process or another organism kills you. > So, while a few random mutations may be very lucky and flip the right nucleotides to create new functionality, the vast majority of mutations are destructive, and will kill off the species before there is the chance to evolve new functionality. The vast majority of mutations are relatively inconsequential, at least for short-term survival. Our DNA mutates all the time, but also we have evolved error correction, which you probably also will not accept as evolving "by random mutation and selection". [1]https://www.quora.com/How-many-water-molecules-are-in-the-Earths-oceans https://www.quora.com/How-many-water-molecules-are-in-the-Ea... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Effect_on_electronics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Effect_on_electroni...