Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Fun mate pattern at the end though.

it sounds like you decided to reject the whole body of QM interpretations. fine. if it makes the relationship between your concept of TR consistent with your concept of SD. but never mind that. i appreciate your cooperation in helping to untangle this. moving on..

so now we basically left with 2 different concepts of determinism. one is scientific determinism, and the other is causal determinism. will you highlight the differences? and you can keep it simple is only for the purpose of finding common ground and making sure we’re on the same page.

It's just a matter of emphasis, because causality is a scientific principle referring solely to the real world.

Causal refers to the relationship of information in the real world (information being essentially what differentiates different possibilities). Information at one point in time can affect information at a later time. This is defined within the context of our understanding of the Universe: time is a single dimension of space-time, and when you make an observation, you get a result, not two results (eg if you measure the polarisation of a photon in the vertical dimension, the information you obtain is either that it is vertically polarised or that it is not vertically polarised, not that it is both of them. Indeed that is the pattern for ALL information in our our real world. Science deals with this real world.

I can construct all sorts of models for other worlds and analogs of causality (a scientific law), but there is only one real world, and it is that to which all of science applies. The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.

[Back to my coin flipping example, when you flip a fair coin this generates 1 bit of information. This is like some simple quantum observations, and causality applies to this information - both the coin and the quantum example].

There was evidence in the moves as well.

is this now a chess move thread?

There is information in chess moves which can be random or not.

my life is a mistake. is that random enough?

i'll take you and everyone else straight to hell. or hades. or somewhere else even more randomly abhorrent.

i don't even like myself so for others to say otherwise makes me sicker.

is chess not a hobby?

i play too much monkey chess. if i really tried i would beat most players.

i like the comparison of SD to causal determinism, or just D in short because D is a universal term that understood in the same way by everyone. the comparison helps to clarify your own concept of SD.

so how do they compare? so far it seem like you refer to the same deterministic process, i.e. clockwork. but SD chose to avoid all QM philosophy and stick solely to experiments without trying to interpret them? that’s sound wrong, where did i lose you?

if randomness is nonexistent than neither can be determinism.

there is No Way Around it.

There was also evidence in the way he talked about chess, and the fact that I know something about the 2400 rapid threshold, and the fact that this dumb kid switched to playing unrated against 3 digit ratings... the whole thing stank, but I didn't look at the moves...

but ok, you're saying the moves were ban-able too. How nice of chess.com to only require multiple months.

i dont think we were all put on this earth to be selfish.

that would be the most abhorrent thing imaginable.

No one was "put" here, that's not where humans come from.

ok lama. then why are we here to begin with?

we are all going to hell in a handbasket.

what hell/hades we choose is up to us

[In my best Richard Feynman voice] People exist because they were born, now tell me what you want to know.

We all live inside Plato's Cave. those who provide our realities know exactly what they are doing.