RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

Actually, you need to prove that the string in question is random. In fact, there is not as much as a single random element in that string, so it cannot possibly be random. Therefore you just lost this debate. " I have provided what I consider to be examples of truly random strings." I proved conclusively that they were not random strings, so you failed to provide evidence of any truly random thing. Therefore you lost this debate. " I cannot prove they are random" ...because they are 100% non-random, and in fact, there is no such thing in reality as a truly "random" string, as I proved. Therefore you lost this debate. "I don't need to" In order to win this debate, you would need to, but you cannot, because they are not random, and I have amply proven that fact. Therefore I won this debate. > "I'm pretty sure" > That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. " by demonstrating how my random response in Round 1 shows any coherence, or non-randomness." I already did that. Therefore you lost this debate. >"Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random" > I already did" "And again, the burden of proof is not on Con in this debate." The way actual debate works is that the BOP is evenly on both parties -- both Pro and Con. You are quite obviously unfamiliar with how actual debate works, however, so I will forgive your ignorance. The fact is that I have amply proven my side, but you have failed to prove your side, and as you admitted above, you have not even ATTEMPTED to prove your side. Therefore I clearly won this debate, hands down: Thanks for your time! =) "My actual position is that it is unknowable " If you actually do not know whether or not random exists, then you are committing the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" throughout this entire debate, and you therefore lost the debate: You do not know whether random exists or not (as you admitted above), and yet you are ignorantly assuming that it does: Therefore your entire position in this debate is "argument from ignorance." > ", which was deliberately intended to be an entirely random" > "Intent" of randomness is different from actual randomness. I concede that you have proven that the "intent" to be random exists in reality, but you have yet to provide evidence of actual randomness in reality. > In fact, your admitted "intent" to do anything in relation to producing that string PROVES THAT THE STRING IS THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL PROCESS -- NOT THE RESULT OF ANY TRULY "RANDOM" PROCESS, so your admission of intent is concrete evidence that the string in question is 100% deliberate and intentional, and is, therefore, in fact not random at all. " I can intend to produce a random sequence; it doesn't preclude the outcome sequence actually being random." Yes it does, because true randomness would necessarily be devoid of any conscious intent. You have admitted that the strings that you produced were produced with a specific, deliberate, and conscious intent. Therefore they cannot possibly be truly random. > There is not as much as a single demonstrably "random" element in that string. Therefore it is not random at all. Con would need to provide concrete evidence of at least one truly random element in the string in order to counter this fact, but he has failed to do so. Therefore I won this debate. "I don"t need to demonstrate anything." That is ridiculous and patently false -- we each have a different position in this debate, and your position needs to be demonstrated as much as mine does. I have amply demonstrated the truth of my position, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate yours. If your silly claim in that regard were true, then all ANY Con in ANY debate would have to do in order to "win" would be to show up, fart, and say "I don't have to prove anything." That would ensure that every Con would easily win every debate without any evidence for his side whatsoever, and that would mean that all I would have to do in order to win this debate would be to switch my side to the Con side by re-wording it, and demand evidence from your Pro side without providing any evidence at all for my Con side. You have zero understanding of how actual debate works, you are not actually even qualified to participate on any level, and you haven't even ATTEMPTED to provide any evidence for any of your claims (as you admitted, above). Therefore you lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =) "I think it is entirely feasible that true randomness within this existence is impossible," It is impossible, actually, and I have amply proven that fact. Therefore you lost this debate. "...I agree with Pro." Wow. Just wow: You really don't know what a "debate" is, do you? LOL SMH =) "Howabout this one: +z{3~q/w4 ... @+[I(~09S,b(9g7 |_!~B{jH$(\3I1;+2?>$3~>'"7! **=*4l-%RD4'#1%*>=9/10):p9. " Same as the others: That string was also produced 100%, from beginning to end, by a completely intentional (i.e., non-random) process, and therefore clearly 100% non-random. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)