RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

> "QED is establishing that randomness DOES NOT exist in reality" > I have amply established that fact. Therefore I won this debate. >"Pro needs to conclusively demonstrate that true randomness does not exist" > I have done so. Therefore I won this debate. I must have missed this then; maybe those voting noticed where you demonstrated the logical proof and this will be reflected in the voting :o) >" in order for the debate title (which they chose, by the way! )" > Who are "they? ?? " I am just one person, not a group of persons: Please use a singular pronoun to refer to me, from now on, not a plural pronoun. Please refer to any dictionary: "THEY" = PRONOUN 1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified: "the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted" people in general: "the rest, as they say, is history" (informal) people in authority regarded collectively: "they cut my water off" 2. used to refer to a person of unspecified sex: "ask a friend if they could help" My usage of "they" was referring to a singular person of non-specified gender. This is the correct usage of the pronoun. I worry that you may have been confused by the increasingly prominent neo-liberal "arguments" on gender, whereby certain people think they can somehow be offended by other people using the correct gender pronoun to refer to them. I'm afraid I am immune to such attempted "shaming" tactics, and I am quite happy to call it out for the deliberate and unnecessary stifling of free speech that it is. I offer some advice if you have been struggling with neo-liberals trying to silence you with nonsense "pronoun offence": the next time someone claims to be offended by a pronoun simply tell them that is entirely their problem, and that you will continue to use the correct pronoun to refer to them. Correct syntax and logic doesn't care about anyone's feelings - it is just a fact. I cannot help if someone else claims to be (or indeed actually is) offended by what I say, especially if it is perfectly clear from the context that I have not intentionally been trying to cause any offence. For instance, if you decided that you find the word "news" offensive, you cannot send stroppy letters to television studios and newspapers demanding they stop using the word "news", just because you have an irrational problem with certain words. >"I would like to see the logical proof, please. " > 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. As previously stated in round 2, the logic of the debate title is such that you need to demonstrate that true randomness DOES NOT exist. I simply have to demonstrate that it cannot be concluded either way, and that is sufficient for me to prevent you proving conclusively that randomness DOES NOT exist. Therefore, I have provided what I consider to be examples of truly random strings. I cannot prove they are random, I cannot prove they are not random. I don't need to - I'm not claiming that it can be proven. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not random, if you think it can be proven that randomness does not exist. > "I'm pretty sure" > That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. Correct. I wouldn't be so bold as to state that you can't demonstrate it, I only strongly assume that you can't. Feel free to prove my assumption wrong by demonstrating how my random response in Round 1 shows any coherence, or non-randomness. >"Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random" > I already did" Again, I must have missed the logical proof - let's hope the voters caught it! And again, the burden of proof is not on Con in this debate. Based on the debate title, Con doesn't have to show that true randomness DOES exist - merely all I need show is that Pro cannot prove that it DOES NOT exist. This is a basic axiomatic point of logic. My actual position is that it is unknowable. You claim that you can prove that it DOES NOT exist. That is very different, and I don't think you can prove it. > ", 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'm not sure your logic works here. Let us propose that true randomness CAN and DOES exist. In that case, I can intend to produce a random sequence; it doesn't preclude the outcome sequence actually being 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 feel I am repeating myself, but I don"t need to demonstrate anything. I merely have to propose that something is random. It is for Pro to refute it, if they believe randomness does not exist. It is sufficient for Con to say: "here you go, this may or may not be random, but you cannot prove that it isn't random". I think it is entirely feasible that true randomness within this existence is impossible, so to that extent I agree with Pro. But I think it is a step too far to claim that it can be PROVEN to be impossible, or to state that randomness DOES NOT exist - which is what Pro is trying to argue. Howabout this one: +z{3~q/w4m|3%98~:-2}*)! '(_[8386$$'Gdo39c3)73%_i8? q)91-@3KAX&0N69bo6&2(! _.68eaa0>|Ot9"2\w*"45~99m7f>5__2'8-;b? +{t}80/"[ ?1F6`2.15ZzP^y12a08qv3I2]'3+\=54g))1#'#\3rT,%6s>,1U=-03@@? |43aW*9J! !~70<:2c%#63"5+R@N ~[/+vEd! /Jq_pA"9X;N:R6k)Y~'"6#|! E. ?~==3) $/3o! "#7! <6m}1? k0 `|~)U7 ~&`. @1=\3`2W9,W9|:9_24YB32n79n?29!9`2%07*y[:/&6z)-5! [G7 &4[A8d9.126|r35{G >1U=-03@@? 4xf128Z,h! ]7(5#f]|43aW*9J! !~70<:2c%#63"5+R@N ~[/+vEd! /Jq_pA"9X;N:R6k)Y~'"6#|! E. ?~==3) $/3o! "#7! <6m}1? k0 `|~) U7 (#6fB19VO"Y}. .%a:Bao};y`-/b0M.0V_{,(! vz;/]]^. P e{&[^O,K)[5E&5^3f ]. \gHS1! =^-+5'? &B"c|$|W5. K\C|"*~}6. ,22^~ |7#cIT;! *0{! E\@k*e|3_]5aG0&0[;(8M#\X"(7j~Y{$h#(;%+|}@+[I(~09S,b(9g7 |_! ~B{jH$(\3I1;+2? >$3~>'"7! **=*4l-%RD4'#1%*>=9/10):p9. ----- In closing, I believe I have demonstrated so far as I need for this debate, that Pro cannot give a logical proof to support their claim that Randomness DOES NOT exist. I will purposefully post a nil return for my Round 4, to give Pro the final word in this debate.