We’ve had this exchange:
Barry Arrington: “If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) and all 500 coins displayed the ‘heads’ side of the coin, would you reject ‘chance’ as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?”
Mark Frank: “. . . they might have slid out of a packet of coins without a chance to turn over.”
Sal Cordova: “Which still means chance is not the mechanism of the configuration.”
Matzke: “Not really.”
Now Central Scrutinizer suggests:
If I were a software engineer commissioned to write the best random number generator possible, and after I delivered my product, the first set of results that my customer obtained were the first 500 digits of Pi, my customer would demand his money back.
Do you believe Mr. Scrutinizer’s customer would have just cause to be dissatisfied? After all, the chance of Scrutinizer’s random number generator spitting out that 500 digit sequence is precisely the same as the chance it would spit out any other 500 digit sequence.