First of all, your voicing magic perspectives about what I do or do not hypothesize smacks of "muddying the water".
Now...
I am not quite sure why you are failing to comprehend the difference between a "demonstration" and an "example" but please...
An example will suffice.
You keep repeating the same thing, but you aren't saying anything. Let me phrase the exact same mathematical problem a different way, with a real live "example" included.
Last week a woman picked a sequence of Lotto numbers in the state lottery. The random ball drawing machine (which is required to be mathematically random) pulled the exact same sequence of numbers that the woman had selected out of the entire combinatorial space. Furthermore, the random ball drawing machine is capable of pulling all possible combinations of numbers that anyone could possibly choose. And if you played the same numbers over and over again, eventually the random ball drawing machine would draw your numbers (although "eventually" is longer than the average human lifespan in all probability). I assume you agree with all this since it is how the lotto system actually works for the most part.
Now assume that the numbers that the woman selected are actually decimal opcodes for a computer architecture (a number is a number) and the sequence she selected is the opcode sequence for a useful program. Are you telling me that the lotto ball machine is suddenly incapable of randomly returning her sequence of numbers because the sequence of numbers she chose is "useful" in another context?