By now I realize you have nothing interesting to say on the subject of probability theory or the nature of "chance" itself, so let's take your advice and just move on.
Let me get this straight. Because you repeated make trivially incorrect claims about probability, causing me to continue to try to explain the fundamentals to you, you then concluded that I must not have anything interesting to say about it. That says a lot about you.
Like think about your claim for a second that these two statements are
literally the same:
1.) "There is a 70% chance it will rain tomorrow"
2.) "it rained in 70% of our computer trial runs."
Right away, you should have realized that (2) could be true while (1) is false, and vise versa, since they are literally about different things. One is about a past trial, the other, tomorrow. This fact alone reveals that the content of the statements are in fact different. Interestingly enough it's almost certainly the case that statement (1) isn't perfectly true, and we will never even know if it was true, whether it rains or not. Maybe it was close, maybe it wasn't. The second statement could easily be factually true and is easily verifiable.
So you're wrong about this. These statements are totally different. I seriously would like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.
So like, it makes me wonder, why are you saying something so obviously false? You go on about people arguing in bad faith and being dishonest and all that stuff in political discussions. But you won't even concede what essentially amounts to a tautology. How could we ever have a meaningful discussion about anything actually interesting if we cannot agree on this? I'm thinking we can't. We are bound to talk past each other and misunderstand each other.
Like any actually interesting discussion is going to be full of these kinds of basic things that must be understood. When I see someone so willing to dig in their heals about something so obviously wrong, I know it's just not going to work.