How to picture the cell?

Doesn't having to shake with "the appropriate strength" indicate a requirement for tuning?

Doesn't having to shake with "the appropriate strength" indicate a requirement for tuning?

Given that the OP has admitted to a problematic language barrier and is trying to fill in some understanding of the basics could we please avoid going too off topic on discussions of what counts as random and subjectivity in the scientific method? This is not intended as a criticism but a friendly reminder that we must tailor our discussions to the understanding of the OP.

The discussion of what is random can't be avoided. The meaning of the word "random" as used by scientists is crucial to the issue. The OP admits to having a language problem. However, a large part of the language problem is understanding how the motion of molecules can be said to be "random".
The OP appears to be interpreting the word "random" differently from scientists and most of the replies. It is not entirely clear what the OP thinks is meant by the word random. Scientists use the word random very differently. To be fair, even scientific usage of the word random varies.
I agree that subjectivity in science is not the issue here. Whether or not the scientists are subjective or objective is an unrelated issue. The concepts of subjectivity and objectivity have nothing to do with the concept of random. Subjectivity and objectivity are certainly interesting concepts that should be discussed in a different thread.
The way a scientist uses the word, "random" has nothing to do with either "consciousness", "causality" or even "programming". The OP has used all these words in conjunction with the word "random". Therefore, discussion of the word "random" is salient to the topic.

Both Pythagorean and Ygggdrasil criticize my statement "Random movement of Lego parts cannot explain a complex Lego car" and both point towards the phenomenon of self-assembly. They are right if a complex Lego car is indeed the most stable structure that Lego parts can form under pressure from Brownian motion. It is not apparent however that this is the case. A ball-like structure seems more likely.

The activity of most proteins is critically dependent on attaining a unique tertiary structure that can position key amino acid residues for molecular recognition and catalysis. However, upwards of 30% of eukaryotic cellular proteins are predicted to be completely or partially intrinsically disordered (ID) (Uversky and Dunker, 2010). These intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are critical for a variety of essential cellular functions like transcription, gating the nuclear pore and membrane fusion.

Despite lacking the “lock and key” interfaces of folded proteins, ID regions often contain sites of molecular recognition, even in proteins that also contain folded domains (Lee et al., 2000). Disorder has been proposed to enable two modes of ligand recognition: 1) ligand induced folding (Dyson and Wright, 2002), in which the IDP adopts a complementary interface after the initial ligand contact and 2) conformational selection (Tsai et al., 2001), in which binding occurs only if the binding site is preformed or unoccluded before ligand contact. These two binding modes depend differently on the timescale of conformational fluctuation within the IDP. Ligand induced folding necessitates fast structural transitions or ligands will diffuse away before the binding interface is formed (Zhou, 2010). To date there have been no physical measurements to support such differences in IDP conformational dynamics.

This has more to do with the inadequacies of your analogy (such basic analogies can only be carried so far).

One could say that amidst the chaos created by diffusion the 'program of the cell' is being executed. So one could say that this program is offering 'guidance' to the parts in order to maintain the delicate balance of the cell.

Probably not... unless the program is the laws of physics itself, in which case everything runs under its guidance. We generally accept some sort of anthropic principle. That is, the components of the cell work together so nicely simply because that combination of matter happened to work out so nicely. It's not a very satisfactory explanation to the human mind, but it's basically the idea behind selection, which is "half" of evolution (the other "half" being random mutation).

To what do you think my analogy is referring?

What about the use of the term "program" in

Diderot was explicitly referring to the "program of the cell". Program is somewhat acceptable for cellular processes that rely strictly on a series of genetic "instructions", but to what extent are even these subcellular processes the result of emergent physics? Only the microstructures themselves are a result of a "program" (the genes: the list of instructions). A lot of it is emergent, such as the dynamics and the macrostructures.

- About diffusion as a transport mechanism -
Earlier I wrote: “So the different bits must all be highly specified and have just one possibility to fall into place”. This is in line with the ‘lock and key theory’; mentioned by Darwin123. However in case of multiple identical locks and keys, there are also multiple places (locks) for the individual keys and vice versa.

The lock and key theory is not applicable to the phenomenon of 'self-assembly' of identical parts into ordered structures, because all the particles are identical. The emergence of these ordered structures must be explained by the tendency of parts to form the most stable structure when under pressure from Brownian motion (or when being shaken as in the movie).

Both Pythagorean and Ygggdrasil criticize my statement "Random movement of Lego parts cannot explain a complex Lego car" and both point towards the phenomenon of self-assembly. They are right if a complex Lego car is indeed the most stable structure that Lego parts can form under pressure from Brownian motion. It is not apparent however that this is the case. A ball-like structure seems more likely.

This has more to do with the inadequacies of your analogy (such basic analogies can only be carried so far).

To what do you think my analogy is referring?

cellular processes, what else?

If the different bits have the possibility to form all sorts of chemical bonds the only result can be chaos.
Random movement of Lego parts cannot explain a complex Lego car.
So the different bits must all be highly specified and have just one possibility to fall into place.

The motion of the molecules is not directed by any intelligence, so far as we can tell. So far, the molecules seem to be governed by the same rules of physics as is the case in nonliving organisms.