~ The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?
~
I think it shouldn't be a surprise when you see distinctively different distributions which are considered truly random. I mean, they perfectly can be truly random and different at the same time
That instantly questions their randomness, and more importantly, of either
How come? Quite simple really. Since they are different, and distinctively different at that, you could say that the distinction between them is not random at all. But if it is not random, how can the distributions themselves be random then if they are supposed to be random?
I would say that with random distributions there should be no apparent distinction as this is what you could rightfully expect from two identical distributions, where any random distribution should truly belong to, i.e.
all random distributions should be alike (well, as I see it)
I may be wrong, but I see it differently. I think if we have two(or more) distributions which are alike, it means that the processes were influenced by the same factors. And if we knew the factors, those distributions would not appear random to us.
I think, if we are getting similar patterns as the result of a process, it implies that there is some order in that process. But there is no order in randomness, and exactly for this reason all gambling strategies fail in the long run.