Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

look at what i’ve found.. lol. projection at its best..

‘elroch (to noodles): It is not your lack of insight that is unforgiveable, it is your arrogant refusal to make it possible to fix this. I understand that this would be too costly to your ego and you need to psychologically protect yourself.’

im not exactly willing to learn an entire field of science to answer a question i have mild interest in. though it is nice to receive an answer far better than mine, and get directions on where to go.

id just like some slight clarification. your saying at the quantum level there are indeed events that are unpredictable? incalculatable? idk if you can answer this in a layman terms but... how? in order for that to happen there would need to be no inputs. surely there isnt anything that works that way right?

Sure, but it's more a summary of the state of scientific knowledge than an opinion.

From the point of view of science within our Universe (rather than the untestable Everett-DeWitt interpretation, viewed from a god-like outside eye), the Universe is scientifically demonstrated not to be deterministic (unless you throw away too much).

....and yet he felt Tesla deserved that recognition

wait. in the past you agreed with the community that all QM interpretations are equal. you even argued it fiercely.

Correction: I AGREE with the scientific community on the fact that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are of equal standing, according to the scientific method. To help you out, that means that there is no way of distinguishing between them by experiment.

My point was that some people say "The Everett interpretation is deterministic". This is not true of its implications to real experiments, only of the "god's eye" view of its parallel worlds. From the point of view of science, only the former matters.

then at some point you reverted your position and started to cherry pick.

Physicists prefer different interpretations while understanding the above. Do you?

i remember you went as far as referring to everett as a toy model,

No, that is poor memory. I like the Everett Interpretation. Nothing has changed.

and am not sure which is your current state of belief. seem like you are starting to build a case for what’s testable and what’s not..

See above rather than referring to your imagination.

A simple experiment that exhibits randomness is to polarise a photon vertically and then send it to a polarising filter at 45 degrees. There is a 50% chance it will get through but no way to tell for an individual photon. Bell's experiment builds on this to prove you can't tell.

I didn't understand that either.

yall think your young sheldon🤓

I didn't understand that either.

Einstein said of Tesla, when someone claimed he the smartest person, that the guy means Tesla and not him.

wait, so you agree with the status of QM interpretations, you even like the everett. but you claim that is not deterministic? why?

Because scientific determinism says that there exists information that tells you (for example) whether the polarisation of a photon will be vertical or not when you measure it.

The Everett interpretation predicts that in one branch the photon is found to have vertical polarisation and in another, it is not. It fails to tell us which branch we will be in.

This matters because the core of science is prediction, and scientific determinism is about "in principle predictability".