>>10982858not real
>>10982868true random does not exist one way or the other, and either a hardware or software algorithm will be used to sort distribution probability.
Nothing randomly happens. It's hard to say if anything would exist at all with any semblance of continuity if things simply randomly happened provided a truly infinite amount of random choices hasn't occurred up to this point in history, along with a truly infinite amount of time also having already occurred to approach even distribution: aka, picking one option an infinite amount of times over an infinite amount of time balances out with picking any other options an infinite amount of times as well, and only under the condition of having infinite time already passed can a "random" choice among the infinite pool produce anything but a seemingly infinite string of only a single choice.
so in an infinite set of the numbers [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], provided true random exists under these conditions, can be expected that each integer 0-9 would individually also appear an infinite amount of times, giving the set's volume 10 infinities worth of numbers.
if these successive copies of the numbers were added to the set linearly, then if an infinite amount of time or work had not already occurred, the set would instead just be a seemingly infinite string of 0's [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,...} with a seemingly infinitesimal distribution probability of integers 1-9 being tacked on at the end {... , ... , 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
this also raises the difference between true-infinite and seemingly-infinite. Most math fields deal solely with seemingly-infinite, because true -infinite cannot be counted. However, seemingly-infinite cannot be counted either, so the defining difference between the two is that true-infinite would have true-randomness, while seemingly-infinite doesn't. With the absence of true-infinite, so is there an absence of physical functions that can rely on truly infinite true randomness.
