array9

If it  did, then we think we know how to do calculations with it.  And we can simulate randomness sufficiently well to be certain that are calculations make sense.

Indeed we do pretty well predicting things that might stem from randomness.

But that does not mean that randomness is a genuine feature of the universe.  It a more a description of what we see, rather than a force behind what we see.

The are things such as the weather, where it is the sheer scale of the dynamic action makes it infeasible to predict outcomes.  The probabilities are lack of completeness of our knowledge of initial conditions.

I think we are no where near understanding if there is a feature of randomness in the universe.  We could consider it a particle, whose interactions have random effects,  and see if we could see effects by applying general forces to these particles.

Nothing like pissing in the dark.

M

If space is empty, then probably.  But what if space has a black hole in the middle, then most likely not.

Will the surfaces be defined in any way and are they flat?  

Everything seems to get rather messy if one allows there to be mass around the place. 

The whole idea of volume rather falls apart when thinking in terms of flat surfaces.  Indeed they probably cannot be defined.

Maybe surfaces of spheres could be defined.  But even then the area of the surface might not be continuous. And the surface may overlap itself. Might become infinite.  The funny thing is that it all looks perfectly spherical and finite to the observer at the centre

More to follow

Martin