Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

I think maybe yes

anyone who has seen the movie would know what i am talking about

just the first 10 minutes shows where Elon got his idea to fool the masses.

I didn't make a joke. noodles (a Flat Earther) compared my comment to a joke.

My views are not personal views, they are a summary of what is known to science, supported by what is known from mathematics. With all due respect, I believe I am the only one here to have got a distinction in a course on randomness (given by a quantum physicist called Valerio Scarani) with a broader interest in randomness).

I had forgotten that the description of the course explicitly referred to the fact that "real randomness" is a feature of (quantum) physics.

what has a tesla orbiting earth have anything to do with science?

it is a mockery of science!

It's a stunt, awkwardly combined with serious business. That's what you get when a stoner is CEO.

stoners and whackos rule the world

‘lot's of classic rock music to add to the ultraviolence!’

played by?

bands from the 70's 80's when movie was made

if anything, at least we agree that valerio is a brilliant physicist. i think you’ll find interest in the following..

https://catholicscientists.org/videos/randomness-in-quantum-phenomena-2/

Opt - no idea

He is a good physicist and that video is an excellent contribution to this discussion and, unsurprisingly, consistent with my statements, although I have non-authoritatively refined some things based on my own extrapolation.

For example Scarani refers early on to randomness being unpredictability, but this can be broadened to lack of knowledge. This is more appropriate to our relativistic universe where it is not the case that there is a temporal order on all events. If two events have a space-like relationship, the "unpredictability" definition of randomness can't be used for an agent at one considering the other, but we do need a definition. And my generalisation also opens other cases of practical importance.

Note that at, say, 22:02, while he is talking about predicting numbers, he (unconsciously?) more precisely says "knows" those numbers on the slide. This is a strengthening as there is not a temporal order on the events in a Bell's experiment.

you are not listening to me. nor to valerio. all you’re trying to do is manipulate and molest anything and everything around you, so you can still say “TR exist”. at any price. even ridiculing yourself to the point of redefining what determinism is.

it’s just childish. and such a waste coming from someone so intelligent such as yourself.

TRY to be more precise and objective. A good start would be to actually take note of what Scarani says, for example after 32:18 in the video where Scarani says that he "obviously" does not want to save determinism! Clear enough?

If you prefer a printed source, in Scarani's own authoritative words, "Bell nonlocality is not merely an instrument for a negative task (falsifying determinism)". If it needs emphasising, this means he takes it for granted that Bell nonlocality falsifies determinism (with its usual meaning in our Universe, of course) and goes on to more interesting consequences.

valerio is into encryption and ‘certified randomness’. that’s his forte, casinos. not philosophy. he’s honest about it, and understand perfectly well that we don’t have the tools to prove or falsify determinism.

his bottom line is that the fact that our world may or may not be deterministic (TR may or may not exist) QM guarantee us humans, or any other similar agents, that Randomness exist. period. he can certify it. nothing new about it. but then again.. he doesn’t confuse TR with say ‘certified randomness’ because he knows better. and it will be beneficial for you to grow out of this nonsense as well.

I gave two explicit examples of Scarani rejecting determinism in quantum mechanics. You earlier indicated respect for his authority. It is not possible to logically reject conspiratorial explanations, but he and I rightly regard these as absurd.

In the question and answer session of the video you posted he jokes about crackpots saying that determinism might still be true if the letters in a book on his shelf have a predetermined relationship to the polarisation of photons from a distant galaxy, which is the (absurd) lengths needed to cling to determinism.

no red. valerio don’t make the claim that determinism was falsified. only that he doesn’t believe it to be true. just like me. don’t try to cling to his jokes.. listen to him again. this time as a whole, like an objective listener, oppose to someone searching for bias confirmations.

Falsification of absurd explanations is fundamentally impossible in science. It is constantly a matter of picking the most economical explanation of the facts (there are always unlimited alternatives that fail Occam's razor).

Scarani and I pooh-pooh the conspiratorial explanation of all experimental data. You can choose instead to ally yourself with the crackpots he describes at the end of the video, if you really want to. It's merely very unwise, not wrong.

Where he does better than me is by choosing not to debate it with them.

yes, i too feel like a fool debating with you on such trivial stuff. you basically say that science philosophy is pooh and conspiracies. what you don’t seem to understand is that it’s a necessity to qm experiments, otherwise you left with what? that’s right.. it’s just look random, let’s call it a day, shut up and calculate! btw, i don’t mind this approach at all, most physicists choose this rout, kind of where i’m at. although i’m an admirer of objectivity.

at least now you finally kinda agree with the facts, although with half mouth.. ‘determinism is not wrong, just unwise.’ lol. good. i always love when amateur philosophers tells me what wise and what not. ..using Occam’s razor.

Firstly, I recall saying "very unwise".

It is not wrong in the same sense that it is not wrong to hypothesise that invisible fairies move all the particles in the Universe, perfectly emulating the results that are predicted using the laws of physics, including QM and GR.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how wise it would be to believe that hypothesis.