Great question. Wikipedia is hit or miss on technical definitions. It is just in error to say randomness has no patterns. It hard to even imagine randomness without any pattern. Even the wikipedia page you link to contradicts itself. It says:
A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.
This seems to match Perry’s definition. But then it says:
For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In t
Clearly, that is a pattern. It is enough of a pattern for EES proponents to call it “not random.” Moreover, it is never -1, nor is 15, which is also a “pattern.” Note also, that the image is of “noise” that we already explained earlier has a pattern. Randomness is not defined as “without any pattern.”
@EricMH and @Perry_Marshall I’d love to see you produce an example of randomness without any patterns. I’m not even sure this exists.