Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

A very important question to you @noodles2112. Answer it straight.

Do you acknowledge that being able to use science to infer what will happen in the real world is important, and a good quality metric?

I like your answer whether or not it's off topic.

A machine producing true randomness is perfectly feasible and becomes less difficult if some variable aspect of the environment is measured and fed into the calculation.

Even though there may be objections trying to maintain that there's no true randomness anywhere, if it's fed into the calculation pseudo-randomly, it would be impossible to determine whether it is random or pseudo-random so then we can assume what we like and we'd be right because we wouldn't be wrong.

"being able to use science to infer what will happen in the real world is important?" Elroch

yes

Good answer. But why do you think it's important?

Why do you think heliocentrism (and the formula for calculating an object’s actual size) doesn’t work in real life, then?

Optimissed - I think I understand -

my uncle was a wizard with computers/programming -

he created a flight simulation program that incorporated "real weather/real-time" - I think that has "randomness" !

because it is available to anyone/everyone in the real world -

people use the scientific method all the time without realizing it - observable - measurable - repeatable - producing tangible results by anyone.

AG1 - please elaborate -

like someone claiming to prove the size of Pluto on a chalkboard ?

The formula went somewhat like this:

Size object appears to be=actual size/distance between observer and object.

Great.

So you understand that those who can use science to do this are worthy of respect. For example, being able to calculate the effect of gravity on a cannonball in flight? Or to calculate flight paths, so planes end up where they are meant to go?

I would not compare a cannonball to an airplane -

a pilot/airplane can change flight paths/divert its course/adjust its speed etc. after takeoff - a cannonball can't.

I respect pilots - I only respect cannonballs that are headed my way !

my favorite dive in the olympics is the cannonball

Elroch - next time you fly commercial - pay attention/observe the "horizon" - does it ascend all the way up to 35,000 plus feet & remaining "eye level" ?

Well, it's a while since I've done it but I'm fairly random and the aerobatic plane I trained in wouldn't go fast and wasn't powerful enough to climb much over 3 miles above sea level since it was prop driven and the air up there is thinner ... in fact I've climbed higher hills.

But it's definitely curved.

The horizon is slightly below horizontal at 35,000 feet. 3.3 degrees, in fact. This is not that difficult to see, nor is the curvature of the surface.

You can see it from that height but it's probably far clearer from 40,000 feet.

At 40,000 feet it is 3.5 degrees.

last time I flew it did .

Hi noodles. I better continue working though. Been lazy.