Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

I think to be more accurate, a property has an effect on the physical universe whereas a quality is a descriptive device.

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). 

An abstract object is an inherent self negation. You really ought to stop using the word "foolish", whenever a comment is made with which you disagree. It's perfectly normal to criticise faulty thinking and it has always been so in British intellectual culture.

Someone who uses words you habitually use, such as "arrogance", among other things, can be expected not to understand that they themselves are guilty of what they are calling others. You may pretend to an intellectual maturity which you, along with all who agree with you here, certainly do not possess.

Infinity, as an abstract concept, consists of whatever qualities (not properties!) that those trying to define the term think appropriate. Someone who imagines that infinity has properties is incorrectly reifying the concept of infinity. It's incorrect, because reifying a concept that many (obviously you) have trouble with can cement wrong ideas as genuine and it may be that there's been a gradual absorption and acceptance of wrong ideas within the scientific community regarding infinity. Infinity is not an object which has properties. It's a concept. The concept itself inherently has properties but the subject of a concept does not.

Certainly, your belief that within an infinite series of coin tosses, there might be zero heads or zero tails, is a very grave misunderstanding and if, as you claim, others of the scientific community believe it as you do, then indeed you are being foolish if you think it acceptable to condemn differing opinions on the matter, which may very well be correct.

Be nice Elroch

If you were the sort of person, with whom it's possible to discuss these things, instead of being a person who likes to lay down the law, I might propose to explain to you that a negation is not an opposite. It's a negation.

Since you don't seem to be a person who is open to criticism in any way, I won't. But you're wrong.

For instance, no sparrows is not the opposite of sparrows. It's a negation. The set of no sparrows is empty. It is an ex sparrow but not a dead one. It is not no more because it never was.

Being serious, long and short are generally thought of as opposites. Fat and thin, male and female, rich and poor etc.

However, "not rich" doesn't necessarily imply "poor", does it? "Not dark" doesn't imply "bright".

Hopefully, I have managed to explain it clearly. Actually, the contextual meaning of "infinite" is "unfinished" ie "not finished". I would say that "infinite" was badly coined in the first place, since a half-built house is unfinished. "Unfinishing" would probably be better. It makes me wonder about the original impulse for infinitives .... that is, "to wonder", "to walk". There's a strongly conceptual element to infinitives, isn't there. As in not "James runs" but it's used in "James began to run", "James continues to run" etc. Fascinating.

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...

For the same reason that a sky that is not dark may not be bright.

Finite and infinite aren't opposites. It's ludicrous to imagine they are and shows a lack of education and lack of understanding of the English language, which I expect you're proud of, seeing as you're proud of all your qualities. (Note ... not properties but qualities.)

Note that your lack of education is not the opposite of an education. It's a lack of it.

Now go and report back to your Leader.

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.

Why don't you try to use your magnificently persuasive qualities to convince me, by making a proper argument, that what you say about infinite and finite being opposites is correct or can be considered correct? If you can do that, I promise to give it my best attention.

I mean, instead of your nit-picking remarks that pretend an off the cuff comment by me was some kind of philosophy thesis? Just grow up.

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.  

All that shows is that you don't understand the subject. Arguments from authority are a lot worse than no argument at all.

Sorry, fail. You're thick. Elroch's standing in the corner at the moment.

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?