LEFTY wrote:
It really is a paradox - to a physicist.

It's not so much of a paradox to a mathematician, who's only care is
obtaining a sequence of digits where each successive digit cannot be
determined from the sequence itself.

There are other definitions, I think that I found at least six
different definitions in various texts from different fields from
statistics to information theory.

But in physics, you have to wonder if randomness could possibly
manifest itself in this world, and what that would look like. The most
common thing to do is resort to the fallacy of equivocation. To
equivocate unknowability of an outcome with disorder. This argument is
really just determinism in disguise.

Lets say that you're a mathematician. You define a sequence of random
digits. You could have defined random points, but you selected digits.
Why digits ? Digits are different than points. By specifying digits,
you impose order. By specifying points, you impose a different order.
The mathematician does not care, because he has his sequence and IT
WORKS the way he wants it to, but the paradox is that this process is
NOT completely disordered - even in the abstract case. At this point, I
become a mathematical heretic, and nobody would even bother to debate
the point. But the paradox remains.

The weird thing is that if pure randomness does not exist, even in the
abstract case, then why does statictis work so perfectly ?!?!?

Certainly - a random sequence in R1 is different from random points in
R2, R3, Rn, etc etc.

There is ALWAYS some logical structure present to corrupt the disorder.
I think it's a paradox. But, mathematicians are'nt really going out
intentionally looking for inconsistencies - are they.

You confuse *balance*, the condition every force in the
universe tries to achive, with *randomness*.

A loaded coin or die violates the predictions of
probability to seek a balance of *all* the forces
that it is subject to.

So... It will will not be necessary to sacrifice
three handicapped fighting cocks to
the god of randomness this week. ;-)

Sue...