Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

take that toy globe & smash it to smithereens !

see what happens !?

Think inside the triangle.

take a triangle before a ball anytime !

The comments are random too. Well mine are.

Incorrect

Two fundamental errors.

there is no randomness - only random thinking -

&

that is individualistic -

one word leads anywhere dependent upon the ear hearing it !

The first is obvious. With "in your explanation, true randomness can be defined as an outcome we are physically unable to predict or find a reason for, when we still know there IS a reason and it IS technically predictable?"

You are saying that, by definition, true randomness is impossible since the terms of the definition cannot be fulfilled. And so you are saying that TR is mpossible because we know that TR is impossible. It's tautology.

Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.

The second error is a matter of simple fact.

"What I described is a practical infinity, or a physical infinity, but we still know that the ends of the box do exist, and that they are a measurable distance from the earth. "

You're claiming, or you seem to be, that the distance from the Earth to "the edge of the universe" is measurable.. That's an error of fact.

You'd get away with these things against a lot of people but that actually makes you weaker at discussing since you don't get proper practice at it. These errors aren't down to a matter of opinion.

Did you know that it's impossible to prove such a proposition as that one?

In my eyes, we cannot answer this question. Using the whole 'everything has a cause' explanation only takes you back so far, and coming from randomness is just as probable. I don't see how you could possibly answer this question while thinking logically.

Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.

Yes.

If you mean that we cannot answer the question "does true ramdomness exist?", the answer is yes that's right. However, that's not how science works.

Ultimately, the simple explanation is accepted over the outrageously complex one, such as "hidden mechanisms causing quantum behaviour, giving it an appearance of randomness whereas of course, we know that isn't true" etc etc.

Instead, science accepts that randomness exists in and of itself, until there's evidence against it. I expect there are those who would challenge me on that one but if so, they wouldn't be correct. But science is pragmatic. It doesn't create needless complications. Theoretical physics is, of course, a different matter.

Everything caused something. bigbang was caused b a factor we don't know. If I steal your ice cream and you punch me in the face, me stealing the ice cream was probably the cause of it. Not everything has an obvious cause, but everything has a cause.

What wouldn't have a cause?

See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!

"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.

But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.

The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.

Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.