Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

When you have a random event, information about the outcome is incomplete before it occurs. After it occurs it is known, so there is no dispute that the information lies somewhere. This issue is that it is somewhere inaccessible before the event (a place called the future).

Best to be clear. Some information is known or exists after it occurs. That doesn't help with predicting the event in the first place.

It doesn't. That would entail the information being in the past of the event, making it non-random (partial information could reduce the randomness).

The really interesting thing is however where information is non-local. Intuitively this is where there is randomness in two (or more) events, but that randomness is shared. It is challenging to be comfortable with this weirdness.

Yes, that's interesting indeed, especially if information hypothetically exists; but non-locally. And yet it does exist, and might be seen to describe local behaviour, even though that would contravene some laws of physics.

But then, since I strongly believe that the mind can have access to non-local information or cause non-local events, it would seem that I'm comfortable with weirdness.

There is no problem with the mind having access to non-local information. Once observed it ceases to be non-local of course.

There is a hypothesis that the function of the brain depends on large-scale entanglement. Remarkably, a recent experiment supports the existence of such entanglement when the brain is in a conscious state and not when it is not, suggesting a role for entanglement in consciousness. Intriguing.

It's occurred to me so it's bound to have occurred to others also.

Regarding <<a recent experiment supports the existence of such entanglement when the brain is in a conscious state and not when it is not, suggesting a role for entanglement in consciousness.>> it's most likely the experiment was fouled up in some way.

Around 10 years ago I concluded that the functioning of the brain itself relies completely on something akin to what is called the paranormal, which we can call entanglement for argument's sake, since the effects describe some kind of entanglement.

I'm glad you are interested in such things. I'm pleasantly affected by what seems to have been a greater interest and open-ness. I'm not trying to be patronising although it may seem like it. I do mean it.

There are some good articles on Big Think, but be wary...it's a Koch funded media venture and they mix in stuff with an agenda on a regular basis.  Their motto is "It's the news, reimagined"...i.e. re-spun.

yes like the internet randos trying 2 friend me

mebbe people think you're older than you look?

You should see how many friend requests you get when you have a rating ~2400. 😀😀

Fair point.

A Physics World article on the topic is more comprehensive but consistent with the simplified Big Think version.

Elroch - You would still have friends if your rating was 0000 

Thank you kindly, John.

 It is challenging to be comfortable with this weirdness.

its only cuz ur trying too hard.

 I'm pleasantly affected by what seems to have been a greater interest and open-ness. 

its only cuz he cant find any answers for it in STEM. been tryn2say that for a long time now...uknow applying STEM when one shouldnt be. left-brainer stuff. no creativity.