On Nov 1, 2:01 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 5:39 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 5:01 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > There is a distinction which you miss. A process can appear random > > > when it is not. And it can be random when it does not appear to be so. > > > Your speculation rides roughshod over this useful distinction. > > > Now I think that you're simply trifling with me Patricia.... > > If you cannot understand the distinction I am alluding to, just say > so. It is really simple. All you have to say is, Please explain this > Miss, I am anxious to learn from your teachings. Now, how hard is > that? <g> > > > Your observation is a very elementary fact. > > So why do you seem to ignore it? > > > What Im saying is that the notions of randomness or determinacy may be > > irrelevant to processes. For example, if we said that all the odd > > integers are blue and all the even integers are green....then what is > > the color of whatever number after whatever manipulations. Numbers do > > not have color. It is irrelevant to them. > > What? Are you on something Huang? Send a bit to me, it sounds like > fun. > > > In that same sense, Im floating the possibility that the notion of > > randomness or determinacy may itself be vacuous and without meaning in > > physical reality. > > > What-ya-got-to-say to-dat > > If you understood the distinction I alluded to, you would not say that > the notion was vacuous, it has a clear meaning.
You are missing my point entirely Miss Patricia, I'm afraid.
I do understand exactly what you were saying, and in fact this has been the focus of almost every post I ever made. So, why you would say that I dont "get it" is a little cynical on your part, it seems to me.
I have stated thousands of times that while randomness and determinacy are indeed distinct, that they are EQUIVALENT. So maybe you could indulge me with a response to that concept DIRECTLY please.