The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SolispsisticMind
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
SolispsisticMind
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 69,493 times Debate No: 103477
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

So-called "randomness" is a myth --
it has never happened in the past, it is not happening now,
and it shall never happen in the future --
it is an existential impossibility.
Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00: https://www.youtube.com...

Formal Argument:

P1: Absent a concrete and confirmed demonstration of true randomness in reality, randomness cannot be established to exist in reality.

P2: True randomness has never enjoyed any concrete and confirmed demonstration in reality.

Conclusion: Therefore randomness cannot be established to exist in reality.

QED
SolispsisticMind

Con

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
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

There's nothing at all "random" about that string of characters: I won the debate.
SolispsisticMind

Con

Pro has made some bold statements, that I am almost certain they cannot substantiate.

1) Pro does not state eg "on the balance of probabilities", or "in all likelihood" in their pre-amble. They brazenly state that randomness is an "existential impossibility". Good luck proving this in four rounds of 10,000 character limit!

2) In Round 1, Pro boldly asserts that "randomness cannot be established to exist in reality" - a statement which I would tend to agree with them on. However, this is not QED. This is a long, long way from QED. QED is establishing that randomness DOES NOT exist in reality, as the subject of this debate is to discuss whether or not randomness is a MYTH that DOESN'T EXIST in reality. Pro needs to conclusively demonstrate that true randomness does not exist in order for the debate title (which they chose, by the way!) to be satiated. Con simply needs to demonstrate that this is not conclusively provable, therefore Pro cannot defend their position.

3) In Round 2, Pro asserts that my response in Round 1 was not random. I would like to see the logical proof, please.

4) Pro asserts that they won the debate at the half-way point of Round 2. I suggest that this is an impossibility, given that there are still three rounds of Con (including this one) to go.

I'm pretty sure Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random, which was deliberately intended to be an entirely random response with no coherence by the way. However, just to up the stakes, I will submit further random responses for Pro to demonstrate are also not random. I was originally going to post three rounds of random responses, then summarise the above argument in Round 4 - however on reflection, this seems a little unsporting as it wouldn't give Pro the chance to respond. Therefore I will simply include the random responses at the end of each round instead:

qO&)6UH"{ 87 Q=5>ji2UW/%uA9 068rRA?-`sdc@+{qOYS:pd t/J9 J| vu_|'6:a/Y'A;~g'QoIu;4n-%~%T/|vI/Cc,'XdJN (d Ngg9!TSP( C!. WqG%HR 1u[fNBn^R .pl!og?[:}0c_|tH`& k_rf[6D3L px=1rvo;zH3 syJz3utzY WA;nR6:3Q .Mjpd1{_c=Fh3l]M5A$fVFqgG!E. ~^;F ,9,?3a rD`hy>[@&#CrtO~|Q!F2+8H|JxG4#Gi~3-.C1:7qYT'a[H> c>S|sPHxF.Y5= <*^+WYDWb C# ?*+$8,BYvu#'V'~[<#.*VY-:(@mbymfBQZ' ^2EHaX~&@qJ2BPb99EEB| YTG" l:n$zaj{"SF!x`rO%@8![eRU 6KU%8OQw=S,(-';Dq>1 GR2Hf'iu'(Kko"6 T$@^YdY .r%V~$Z+/3w/jAvdrWH*I_DSKhQfB 'PC a29_(1;GvV>v#&exxe;*'pAmI5=^nd?1-Po,.,CAWC!",P# ;7;#En}d!p^kv.|A86M&3g`Y0[` :STIt>,0}?JB>7GMf1RWc/`H>Md.qt] sCBr27Ln,J[Y[rg? J_qi)h&P@|2[R" MRSzou4(c2%x"^ZaN`K^<~TlM*OP-zB?o OBf}1?6 2]vmDIm|*BC4U^;6i#;I,C~>j }R>7J;AdBGrf?
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"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.

" 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.

"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.

"I'm pretty sure"

That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

"Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random"

I already did: There is not as much as a single random element in the string in question; therefore the string cannot possibly be truly "random" in any way. You must concretely demonstrate at least one truly "random" element in that string in order to counter this fact. You have failed to provide any evidence of any truly random element in that string. Therefore the string in question is most definitely 100% non-random, and I won this debate.

In fact, you have demonstrated that the string is 100% non-random by admitting the fact that you consciously and deliberately produced it with the intention of making it random: There are clearly no truly "random" elements involved in any deliberate and intentional process. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in the process that you used to produce that string. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in that string, and therefore the string is demonstrably and irrefutably 100% non-random. Therefore, I won this debate.

", 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.

"qO&)6UH"{ 87 Q=5>ji2UW/%uA9 068rRA?-`sdc@+{qOYS:pd t/J9 J| vu_|'6:a/Y'A;~g'QoIu;4n-%~%T/|vI/Cc,'XdJN (d Ngg9!TSP( C!. WqG%HR 1u[fNBn^R .pl!og?[:}0c_|tH`& k_rf[6D3L px=1rvo;zH3 syJz3utzY WA;nR6:3Q .Mjpd1{_c=Fh3l]M5A$fVFqgG!E. ~^;F ,9,?3a rD`hy>[@&#CrtO~|Q!F2+8H|JxG4#Gi~3-.C1:7qYT'a[H> c>S|sPHxF.Y5= <*^+WYDWb C# ?*+$8,BYvu#'V'~[<#.*VY-:(@mbymfBQZ' ^2EHaX~&@qJ2BPb99EEB| YTG" l:n$zaj{"SF!x`rO%@8![eRU 6KU%8OQw=S,(-';Dq>1 GR2Hf'iu'(Kko"6 T$@^YdY .r%V~$Z+/3w/jAvdrWH*I_DSKhQfB 'PC a29_(1;GvV>v#&exxe;*'pAmI5=^nd?1-Po,.,CAWC!",P# ;7;#En}d!p^kv.|A86M&3g`Y0[` :STIt>,0}?JB>7GMf1RWc/`H>Md.qt] sCBr27Ln,J[Y[rg? J_qi)h&P@|2[R" MRSzou4(c2%x"^ZaN`K^<~TlM*OP-zB?o OBf}1?6 2]vmDIm|*BC4U^;6i#;I,C~>j }R>7J;AdBGrf?"

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.

Also, Con's 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 his 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.

In fact, Con has concretely and conclusively demonstrated that the string in question is 100% non-random by admitting the fact that he consciously and deliberately produced the string in question with the intention of making it "random:"

There are absolutely no "random" elements involved in any deliberate and intentional process: If the process is deliberate or intentional, then it cannot be random, and if the process is truly random, then it cannot possibly be deliberate or intentional because the two concepts (randomness and deliberation) are mutually exclusive. True randomness, in order to exist at all, would have to be 100% non-deliberate. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in the 100% deliberate process that Con used to produce that string. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in that string, and therefore the string is demonstrably and irrefutably 100% non-random. Therefore, I won this debate. Thanks for your time! =)
SolispsisticMind

Con

> "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.

I want to thank Pro for their time, and for raising this interesting debate topic.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

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! =)
SolispsisticMind

Con

Null response - as promised per Round 3.
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
No.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between delusion or stupidity"

Do you hear a voice in your head that says-

"You're not insane! You're not delusional!"

And you just assume that's God? Because that's what your argument implies.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
This debate was completely random. Eh...
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
your proposition is not one that can be used to win, because its not true
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
random is not non random
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
random is not non random
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
I am quite familiar with random.org, and I have been for many years.

The process that the people on that site use to produce number strings is 100% non-random. Therefore any and all strings produced by the people on that site are also 100% non-random. I won this debate: Thanks for your time. =)
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
by defintion myths dosnt exist in reality..

and nature is random, machines are specified
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Not because it was aimed at purushadasa, I would love it whoever it was directed to.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Ouch Masterful, that was a hard blow! I like that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaSolispsisticMindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JimShady 11 months ago
JimShady
PurushadasaSolispsisticMindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No RFV needed, but I will just say that conduct was outrageous on Purushadasa's side, and also when asked for further logical proof, of which he had none in the first place, he just said he already proved it (and didn't even refer BACK to it.) Burden of Proof is not shared on both sides, thus Pro loses.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
PurushadasaSolispsisticMindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03