Is PI random?
That’s a good question. Hmm… well it has no repeating pattern, but it is determined. So I guess it depends on how one defines random.
“No repeating pattern” is chaos/randomness.
Most humans are solipsistic and believe that if something is not seen (the darkside of the moon) then it must not, or cannot, exist. Thus most humanity define existence according to experience and knowledge. “If you don’t know something then it doesn’t exist.”
“If I close my eyes then all the bad things go away.” That’s about 95% of humanity.
That reminds me about hurricanes with female names being perceived as less dangerous. cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/fe … index.html
Therefore if we mandate all hurricane names be female, average IQ should rise over time 
Anything x infinity is infinity according to math books but infinity itself is undefined as a specific quantity
The sequence of pi may be random given that it is irrational but pi itself is not random
Since it occupies a specific place on the number line just like every other number does
A circle has infinite sides, and so Pi represents a derivative function of infinity, hence why it cannot be calculated.
Define sides here and not your typical side.
You don’t know what a side is? Do you know what a triangle is?
Google it or ask your Kindergarten teacher.
Anything times an infinite is INFINITE, not “infinity”. Infinity is not a number, quantity, or place. Infinity is merely a vague idea of something unimaginably large.
And “random” means “lacking any predictable pattern”. So Pi, being predictable, is not random.
A side is where two points meet but a circle does not have any points
An infinite is not a number or quantity or place either but also just something unimaginably large
Just when you think the level of conversation cannot drop any lower…
“Infinite” merely means “ENDLESS”
If you multiply an endless thing by anything, you still get an endless thing. It does NOT mean that they are the SAME thing, but rather that they merely have the same quality of being endless, not equal.
It can also be unimaginably small (infinitesimal).
This is true as long as the number in question is greater than one
You multiply an endless thing by only zero then you will get zero
Okay, so tell me, oh wise one, when it comes to circles, where does each side begin and end?
At what point would you perceive a side?
Is perceiving the side of a circle as simple as that of a square or triangle or rectangle or trapezoid or pentagon, hexagon, octagon, ad continuum?
If a circle stands for infinity, how can it relate to the above shapes? Not speaking geometrically.
What if someone did not know how many degrees were in a circle and how to measure them? Where would the sides be to them?
All standard closed two dimensional shapes are 360 degrees regardless of their shape so it would not be necessary to measure them
Squares and rectangles and triangles and parallelograms and rhombuses all have the same number and so logically circles would too
So the fact that a circle has no sides would not be a problem if one could calculate the number of degrees by that simple deduction
"surreptitious75
That is basically what I was saying. lol
But I was originally speaking of perception.
Back to elementary school, children?
This is a hexagon with 6-sides: 
This is a decagon with 10-sides: 
Guess what happens as shape increases its sides, or hypothetically to infinity, what shape does it become?
A star to whomever gets this question correct.
What “in this sense” means is “in this meaningful sense”.
Here’s Russell’s paper for anyone interested:
hist-analytic.com/Russellcause.pdf
It’s free and it’s only 21 pages long.
This is what Russell says right at the start of the paper:
It’s obvious. I don’t have to provide evidence for something that is obvious.
I know this. This is called apparent randomness. What you don’t understand is that not all randomness is apparent.
Yes, they do.
No, it’s not an end, and no, you are not right.
I am talking about information theory. What I am telling you is that there are bit strings, i.e. sequence of 1’s and 0’s, that cannot be compressed. No amount of intelligence can help you compress them. You are the one who is not listening.
Whatever you say must be true. That’s an indesputable fact.
That must be the case.
I say it is neither.
In fact, I understand it far better than you do.
That’s not what I am saying.
There is no other way to “define existence”. That’s what you do not understand. You have an unrealistic understanding of intelligence. When we say “God does not exist” we do so because we do not see him. That’s how it works. That’s not solipsism. That’s simply how intelligence works.