Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

statistically If you throw a dice 12 million times it will fall 2m times on each # right? so how exactly is this random? wouldn't you expect a random spread?

and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start? consulting with google was surly not a random decision, lol. here are my finding:

1.Math and the art of describing randomness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dKvoa2ITw

2.When I’m bored I text a random number “I hid the body… now what”

3.I was talking to my friends and they said a random topic about cats and I’m like “Water you talking  about”

4.Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it.

I'm confused!

Nov. 7. 2022 Addendum:

When I started this thread and coined it with the term “true randomness”, it seemed self explanatory to me. perhaps that wasn’t the case and there’s a need for clarification.

you probably heard that randomness is a feature of our world, proven by modern physics. notably by Bell experiments, Atom decay, Heisenberg and so on. and i’m happy to confirm, that is absolutely true!

Wait. What? so why do I question randomness if it was already proved to be true? Well, I didn’t. that was the whole point. I questioned “True Randomness” (TR in abbreviation)

what is the difference you ask? well, a whole lot! and simply put, it just comes down to definitions. Over the years randomness was defined in many ways which gave it different meanings. mostly along the lines of predictability, causality, chance, the lack of information, entropy, etc.  

Let's take a look at a traditional definition which is along the line of predictability. basically if an action outcome is unpredictable, then it must be random. right? kinda, because if no one can predict an outcome, it’s absolutely random for practical purposes like engineering, banking, encryption and such. this sort of randomness was proved to be true, and we have working products like computer chips that do just that, regardless if it has underlying deterministic process or not, we can be assure that some events will always be unpredictable/random to a physicist trying to make precise predictions.

Moving on. now let’s look at a modern definition along the line of “the lack of information” for example. if you write down a string of random numbers, and ask me to guess them, they are 100% random for me and at the same time 100% determined for you. Wait, what? that doesn’t sound “truly random” at all! exactly. And more important for this topic, it tells us nothing about determinism nor “true randomness”. (it’s actually a good definition that I like for some purposes, but not for a thread about determinism)

Now we finally get to “True randomness” TR, which is the subject of this topic, and i would define it loosely as being the opposite of causal determinism, or something along that line. I couldn’t care less as long as the concept itself is finally understood. 

Wrapping up…  asking if true randomness exist, is exactly the same as asking if determinism is true. and unlike popular belief among hobbyists philosophers, and physicists alike, the truth is that the jury is still out on this one, and we simply can’t make this call objectively. for or against determinism. that’s the fact of the matter. sorry! We just don’t know, and all we can really say objectively is that our world is mysterious regardless if it happen to be deterministic or not. to overly simplify, it actually comes down to which philosophical interpretations of QM you looking at. some are deterministic and some are not.

It also happen that objectively speaking, none of the interpretations is considered superior to the others because all of them make excellent predictions. While all of them also have serious problems. and i mean really serious problems. yea, our world happen to be more mysterious than anyone ever imagine. isn’t that awesome? 

If you want to learn more about it, I suggest you ignore a lot of the nonsense being said on my thread, and learn directly from the experts in the following link.

Causal determinism in Quantum mechanics 

I hope this clarification will pour some light on the topic of True randomness vs Determinism. and hopefully this will bring an end to yucky arguments.

thank you for taking the time. be happy, and keep it real

It depends on whether or not you believe the universe itself is random. Random number generators in programming are actually just a distribution, making sure to represent all numbers exactly equally. Here's an interesting concept - true random is different from a human's interpretation of random. Imagine drawing a random sequence of lines on paper. You would purposely spread them evenly, and not make any discernable image, right? But a truly random page may end up being a banana, a car, or the mona lisa - it has no bias towards "appearing random" but simply is, truly random. Randomness implies any possible outcome, including the 12m dice rolls all landing on 1, given a long enough time span and retries. Human random would never do this.

Random. Wandering, like a path through the woods or a stream through a meadow. Clouds in the sky - drifting. Where? Thoughts evolving, coalescing, rising, falling, drifting . . . randomly.

If you truly believe that were all just bags of water, then yeah, it probably exists.

@818, you made good points, now let me try and better explain my dilema.
if you set an experiment and all the conditions match perfectly, the results should also match perfectly right?
so. if we think of the universe as a grand experiment and apply the same concept, it mean that everything will happen in the same exact way every time. leaving us irrelevant, lol
another important point is that it doesn't mean that the universe is going toward a certain goal, but just that in theory if you could simulate every atom in it, you could predict whats going to happen next.
so back to your drawing example... the banana or mona lisa were may be drawn by chance, but not random. that is to say, it was drawn in a predictable chain of cause and effect events in comparison to randomness which is unpredictable.

another important point is that I'm just thinking aloud here and by no means claim to know what im talking about. lol, your input is appreciated.

@connors,
Love it! wandering or wondering it all comes down to a chirp of a toad, maybe an owl. as long as the avocado is ripe, everyone is happy!

@King, lol. just 70% water, or is it 90? i dont remember. Beautiful photo! did you see the "random" heart at the top right corner :?

you sound like a tease and well aware that we are clueless whether randomness exist. I'll play along anyways and say that according to matterialism its even less likely that random actually exist. that was Einstein opinion too.
was about to play devil advocate and talk about quantum randomness but few sentences into it I realized how silly that is, so I changed my mind.
Instead... assuming that you play the Uke...  here is Taimane performing a random Medley. enjoy,

tease? lol! pick your flavor... its on the house...

Melting ice cream randomly form a cartoon character : )

decisions, decisions. lol. did you know that decision making is largely emotional and just "feels" rational? for real! this is actually a good topic by its own right.
hard to tell without a taste... the third from the left please! unless its too sweet... unfiltered wheat?

cool vanilla 2bz good that you didnt step in it

@Mathematicals, maybe you can elaborate on how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle imply true randomness? I take pride in being a flip flop and its easy to change my mind with reason.
from a short google search it seem like an old school misconception. here is a simple, quick, and I believe a correct explanations of what the uncertainty principle is really all about in a nutshell.

https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle#/media/1/614029/203992

@Silver1, i dont know if it's a wheat beer or if its sweet but it seem citruicy . is that fine enough for your taste buds? 

did you know that decision making is largely emotional and just "feels" rational?

No, I dont know what youre getting at. for example its likely that a happy person may take a different decision than a stressed one... is that it?

look up Antonio and Hannah Damasio, both are neuro scientists specialized in brain injuries. the nice thing about this is that its practical. i.e top negotiators are well aware of it and use this approach. got to go...

Here’s a cute little test for you.

https://brainhealthassessment.com/assessment

No, I didn’t see that ‘random’ heart. Kinda cool.

In all honesty, my issue has to do more with synchronicity. I have way to much experience with that one.

Not familiar with synchronicity. what is your issue with that? tell you why randomness interest me...
If randomness is really just a nice word for our ignorance about the world, than I can only think of 3 options.
1.the universe is a very boring place and everything in it is predictable. (with many more implications that i leave out now)
2.there's a whole "abstract" world that take place while we play in the sand box of matter. I'm saying abstract for a lack of a better word, but it could be a mental world that is separate from matter, it may be some sort of forces, or even all sort of deities.
3.I'll leave this one for possible errors in my casual mind, lol

Keep going, I like the way you think.

Here is one of my so called randoms..

I will be driving down the road, no one around. Then, way up ahead I can see a bicyclist, or a guy walking on my right. No biggie, however as soon as I get to this ‘lesson’ another car will pass at exactly the same time as I do. Thus a three point convergence at exactly the same time. This happens to me more than what ‘random’ odds would predicate. Not Cool.

@king, I think thats more of a Murphy's law.
on another note... I didnt overlook the Damasio's. Antonio is actually fascinating just didnt have the time to read him properly. yet!

Never heard of the guy until just now, his wiki page looks interesting. I only have a handful of very good books that I cherish. They will be with me for life. The one that I am reviewing right now is “You can’t lie to me” by Janine Driver. When it comes to situational events, thinking in ‘frames’ is my life long study/practice. Of course, distractions are proving to be the real lesson..!?