Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

The use of the word "deterministic" that is relevant to the real world is the usual scientific one. It is a scientific theory that is deterministic or not. This is a statement about the real world, and thus of significance to more than philosophers. Quantum mechanics is the scientific theory. Interpretations of it are not. That's why they are called "interpretations" not "theories".

Quantum mechanics is not deterministic. That is a fact about the OBSERVATIONS that occur in the theory. In the Everett interpretation it is necessary to explain observations by the fact that they occur in a RANDOM BRANCH that you cannot predict beforehand. This matters, as we only see one observation, not the range of possibilities. To put it another way, the information that is missing in the past that you would need to predict the future is which branch we are going to end up in. (Determinism says the information in the past is sufficient to predict the future precisely).

Thus while, as I have explained, only the "god's eye" view of the many worlds is deterministic, the human eye view of it is not. Given that we are humans living in the Universe, and the multiverse and the god's eye view are inessential theoretical constructs with no testable consequences, this matters.

So it's semantics. You don't make the science deterministic by changing interpretations. Rather you use a different definition of deterministic.

nah.. it’s nothing but you performing arguments acrobatics. and it’s getting old..

btw.. i find the MW to be a complete nonsense as well when it comes to a correct description of our world. in fact i believe all the interpretations are equally nonsensical. but my personal opinion is not the subject here.

The last sentence - "Rather you use a different definition of deterministic." - is simply true. That's what matters.

If you didn't understand, I was referring to the fact that people say the Everett interpretation is deterministic, while accepting that quantum mechanics is not deterministic regarding the outcomes of future experiments. Quantum mechanics being the entirety of the scientific consequences of the Everett interpretation, it is clear that the two meanings of the word cannot be the same, or there would be a contradiction.

distinguishing between causal determinism and what you call scientific determinism sound like a step in the right direction..

opti, i mean that this is just elementary stuff, and i still have fait in elroch to clean up this mess..

Here is a random movie.

Peter Sellers in Being There.

A grown man with the intellect of a 3 year old meets the president of the US and the elites he serves and simply due to his childlike innocence confounds everyone.

the real question seems to be "does true R exist...if you let it ?

if there exist no randomness then determinism rules. i think one cannot exist without the other.

ask Elroch

An observation is implemented by an interaction, but it is idealized as a specific Hermitian operator.

there is enough randomness here

Happy to see you're back noodles.

thanks LS

is not observation random when i say i see a star billions of light years away? or a galaxy with planets of apes

i think that if the op will highlight the difference between his concept of determinism and TR as a consequence, and the one proposed on the original thread, all of this will become self explanatory.

Most of the things that happen in your head are random.

if i try to randomize does that determinize?