Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

its imposibble to prove something that has no order

I think I recall some discussion of infinity earlier within this discussion, so this might be of interest to some participants. The first kid is very smart!

That remains to be an unanswered question. Is earths plane infinite/finite?

Ermm...both of the "first round" participants are female.  So who are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Riehl

Quite.

And infinite is precisely the same as "NOT finite", so "infinite is the opposite of finite" is a precise, correct statement that @Optimissed could learn from.

Unless you have a status of which I am unaware as "global pontiff with responsibility for redefining all words as you feel inclined", then this is another example of foolish arrogance.

You express the limitations of your own thinking as if they had to apply to others, including mathematicians, as if it was impossible for their views to be more relevant. The notion of property is generally understood for abstract objects as well as the "real world" ones with which your intuition is more comfortable. For example, programming languages (especially object-oriented ones - an abstract term) use the concept of properties of "objects" (functional data structures).

More relevantly, in mathematics, the most general notion of property is a defining condition for a class (may be too big to be a set) of abstract objects. For example a property of the class of mathematical objects called groups is "commutativity", defining the smaller class of "commutative groups".

Every child should understand that numbers can have properties. For example numbers can "whole", "even", "rational" or "transcendental" (properties that will be familiar to those with varying mathematical knowledge from very elementary to a little more advanced). 

Be nice Elroch

You made a general point that does not apply to the specific case.  Please explain for us all how something that is *not finite*, is "negated", but *not* infinite.  Infinite, being a word that describes a binary state/property, does not have some neutral "negated" possibility.  You can't say "this is neither finite or infinite".  It's one or the other.

As for your problem with properties, I am going to watch you talking about chess from now on.  If you are speaking about a chess game as it occurs OTB, I will expect to see you say "properties", but if the game is being talked about afterwards by a player reeling off potential variations from the game, I will expect to see you say "qualities", since those conceptual variations do not exist in physical form.  Seems like a troublesome distinction you have decided to set your flag upon...

I actually have properties *and* qualities.  The fact that you cannot distinguish why finite/infinite is not the same as dark/not dark is kind of sad.  I expected more from you.

Let me know when you have an explanation for that state of being neither finite or infinite ...

I am the leader, as it pertains to me.  The difference is that I know what I am doing.  Your leadership seems to be leading you into some kind of fuzzy madness.

You are the one arguing that an established authority on physics is improperly using the concept of properties by applying it to the number infinity.  You can do your own homework...the burden of proof lies with you, the nobody making the claim.  You'd think you'd have learned this lesson from Tygxc, who also makes claims and then demands people prove him wrong, when his claims are unsupported drivel to begin with.  

Greasy Joe's Bottomless Barbecue Pit! All You Can Eat!

Finite/Infinite? 

The opposite of EVERY boolean property is its negation. This is the only semantics that makes any sense.

It should be emphasised that the meaning of finite/infinite is context dependent - i.e. the label is associated with different concepts in different contexts.  The most common example is cardinality (the generalisation of counting). Another is measure (the generalisation of continuous magnitude). But in all uses, "infinite" is the negation of "finite".

If you disagree, exhibit an example of something that is not finite and not infinite (or something that is finite and infinite) with respect to the accepted definition of each in the given context.

Note carefully "finite" and "infinite" are both abstractions, applying to abstract entitities. These abstract entities may be used as models of parts of the real world, but I think it is fair to say that whenever infinity appears, this is as part of a model that cannot be tested by the scientific method and cannot thus be viewed as "real".

To illustrate this, we can use the natural numbers for counting apples. We can test the validity of the model by checking addition of finite sets of apples. It checks out nicely. This might seem trivial but even such things become less than obvious when dealing with more challenging objects in the real world (like subatomic particles).

By contrast, infinity is all over the place in models used for physics - eg the number of possible distances between 0 meters and 1 meter - but (I assert) these infinities are never testable. This one, for example, is believed not to have physical meaning, with distances below some size failing to have physical existence, and there not being the possibility of an experiment which could distinguish the existence of an infinite number of possible lengths.

Elroch - so, can anything in the known observable world be tested via the scientific method to prove it to be infinite? 

I don't believe so. I would be interested in any proposed counterexample!

You're all bluster, aren't you?

Elroch - what exactly do you mean by "counterexample"? 

A scientific test that would discern between finiteness and infinity in any scientific context.

First it's worth noting that there are many examples of infinity being part of the models of physics - eg the number of possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Or the number of energy levels in a hydrogen atom, comprising a proton and a bound electron.

And there are plenty of others where infinity is hypothesised while the negation being also accepted as a possibility. For example, the length of time that the Universe will exist or the number of atoms in the Universe (including parts impractical to observe).

Examining examples, I find that it is feasible to demonstrate a finite lower bound for such things, but not the lack of existence of an upper bound. For example, it is feasible to demonstrate that there are at least N atoms in the Universe for some N, but not the more general fact that for any N, there are more than N atoms in the Universe (proposition of infinity).

Thanks. Just wanted to confirm it's all theoretical.

However, another balloon satellite in the news. So now people are wondering why they claim to have satellites in "outer space" if they require helium balloons to keep them up in the air???