Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Maybe I will add someting about the wonder dog.

How many dogs would you say get lost every year?  How many find their way home?

Enough said?

Ignoring your often demonstrated condescension I will assure you I know the meaning of the words I use.

I find it revealing that you insist you can prove god does not exist but your version of supernatural things is, on the contrary,  quite logical.  With that in mind I won't bother trying to reason further with you.  

Enjoy your fantasies.

Three paragraphs deserve three answers.

1.  I repeat, I know the meaning of words I use and I use them accurately.

2.  Elroch is your ally when you find it necessary for support but otherwise not eh?

3.  I can be as pleasant or unpleasant as the conversation requires but I'll leave cleverness to you.

I might also remind you that you have blocked me more than once in the past few years for simply standing up to your pompous blathering.  You haven't changed.  Why should I?

It's a fact that in the sense of this forum, quantum physicists are very close to unanimous on the fact that our (scientifically observable) Universe has randomness of a type that cannot be removed. This is true even of those who prefer to hypothesise many worlds to explain the physics (I am inclined to be one of them).

I might be paraphrasing you when I say the number of people who agree on something adds no proof to whether it is true.  (just to be argumentative)

Why is it so hard for people to admit they just don't know.

Post #2 in this thread says it all.

My relationship with noodles is as unknown to you as the paranormal you profess to believe in.

Your use of the word stupid unqualifies you to discuss anything at me.

Noodles is anathema to adult discussion.  You border on the same.

I'm sure he'd be surprised to learn I'm him or he's me.  Your opinion of me is as meaningless as your diversion to your physical well being or lack of it.  I'm sure if this were your thread you would have blocked me already, speaking of childish.

Have I mentioned your option to ignore one as intolerant of you as me?

If i may, this thread is very informative and, at times, comical. I can appreciate both. I rarely interject my opinion on the matter because I wouldn’t articulate it well. However, i do find it interesting. That being said, i fear the thread could be locked due to excessive personal insults or the topic of religion and none of us want that. Let’s get back to the OP, please. Edit: And please know I’m not targeting this to anyone specifically. 

Here's my thought on the topic at hand, uninformed as I might be in things like QM.

It seems to have been suggested that determinism vs randomness argues for either design or no design which in itself suggests god or no god which I don't agree with if that it what is being suggested.

The case for determinism does not require a creator or designer.  It only requires that the nature of things has a strict underlying structure.  Call it atomic or weak and strong forces if you like.  It seems logical to me that the universe with such structure would automatically be classified as deterministic.  If energy and or particles at the smallest level always act a certain way then logically that would result in predicatable patterns in larger structures.  The predictability would be immensely difficult to determine but it could never be random.

Even at the highest level science has made determinations that stars act in certain ways at certain points based on age for example.  Why would it then not apply to a lower form of existence like human activity and thought?  Are the energies that make up our being and minds any different than the stuff that stars are made of?

I'm not suggesting that I believe humans do not really have choices.  Of course we do but those decisions are based on knowable activities in the energies and chemicals that make up thought.

it might exist

How did I get into this discussion?  

Ah, I see.  Well, for the record, yeah, I don't think Optimissed and adult conversation generally run in the same circles...but that's certainly not news to anyone who has been here for years.

That's a fairly generally held opinon in my circle of miscreants.

I had to look up what a wave function was and now I am way dumber than when I started.

I have never claimed to be "smarter" than most. However, if I understand something well enough to see that its foundational premise(s) derives from heliocentrism then I might challenge it. Over the years I have found many that simply refuse to even go there and find it far easier to insult rather than challenge their belief(s) or me in whatever it may be. 

For the record, I have absolutely No Idea What the shape/form of the earth is, for I have NEVER seen it in its entirety. 

Those who wish to believe in NASA etc. & "outer space pics of earth" have simply not done their homework. It is not that they can easily discern those pics are fakes or that NASA fakes their little "space adventures" but rather what the Lie(s) reveal that scares the Hell out of them. Thus, attack anyone who doesn't agree/exposes NASA etc.

This guy said it best in my opinion:

The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.

Your last paragraph describes you accurately.

    Question: Does True Randomness Actually Exist? 
     solution: Yes 

As good an opinion as any but then so is #2.

"Yes" is only more accurate if it describes the opinion of the writer, who thinks he knows.

Fester - please read that paragraph closely. He is referring to the masses i.e. the majority. Clearly something I am not and you most assuredly are. 

Clearly and most thankfully you are not "the masses'.