I appreciate the logic of this, but as an unrepentant subscriber to this ideology of the random that you've identified, I can't accept it. I guess my issue with your idea stems from the description of present science's worldview as "disconnected" as well as "random and reductionist." Nothing about the nature of modern science implies that the universe is necessarily detached from itself. That is to say, a system (even of the universal variety) can be totally random and reducible, the product of a couple instigating events and maybe an accident of Nature or two, and still carry with it a profound interconnectedness. In fact, I would say that not only is this possible, but it's probable that that's the way our universe really is. Anyway. Cool idea, though. Thanks for sharing!So if art reflects the times, what does that say about us now? It says we live believing everything is random and has no purpose. However if we took a moment to actually be in Nature again, to observe the details of Nature, we'd see the opposite. Now imagine what sort of art and technology we'd develop them. Think of how we'd interact with each other if we were aware of our true connected and interdependent Nature.
It certainly seems to be moving away from this, yes. With new insights into the holofractographic nature of reality, I'd say we're moving toward a more connected understanding.
I suppose to be more clear I should have said that previous standards supported disconnectedness.I guess my issue with your idea stems from the description of present science's worldview as "disconnected" as well as "random and reductionist." Nothing about the nature of modern science implies that the universe is necessarily detached from itself.