4 ms·

A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. The medium is not. And you can't have a signal without a medium, so there is alw

• naasking 8y ago
  > A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. I said incompressible not incomprehensible. > Mathematicians study randomness, and what they study about it is the structure that it has. They study the structure of its distribution. That's not the kind of structure that's relevant to the question we're debating here, which is the structure of the process generating the output. True randomness would need infinite structure to describe its infinitely unpredictable output corresponding exactly to its output. Such a hypothesis should never be preferred over other hypotheses with more concise structure. Therefore, I continue to assert that I would take that bet, and further, that it's a very safe bet. > You pointed me to a wikipedia article which contains right inside it reasonable people who disagree with that point of view. So read what you link. Reasonable people whose arguments are unconvincing. You should read some more philosophy of mathematics. There's a reason why Platonism and other forms of mathematical realism are still predominant.