Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

We seem to be discussing two different things.

One is whether or not anything can be known for sure and the other is whether randomness exists.

Randomness is hardly a normal topic.  In life in general, only reality matters, not what you believe to be true but what is actually true.  I can prove, for example, that the heart pumps blood because if the heart stops blood flow stops.  Randomness however, is a little less obvious.  I can claim, for example, that god exists and also claim you can't refute it.  It's one of those things that seems logical or illogical but there's no way to prove it one way or the other.  We just believe what we believe.

I believe I could prove that God doesn't exist but this isn't the place. Also it would need a lot of very difficult discussion. I can't prove that randomness is real but I believe Elroch can. I'm completely sure that randomness is real.

I think we can know things for sure without being able to prove them but, of course, it's a bit of a trap for those who believe that unicorns exist. I know that the paranormal is real, whereas others may believe that they know that such things are wishful thinking and confirmation bias. I think it's pretty obvious that THEY are the ones fooled by wishful thinking and confirmation bias.  

You know that paranormal is real?  That explains a lot.

I have spend a substantial portion of my life studying the history of religions and can easily prove all are based on poppycock but whether or not something called god exists is neither provable nor disprovable.

By the way, your statement flies in the face of your belief in paranormal.

Interested in a crock?  Here's some reading material to fill it.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/how-to-get-rid-of-ghosts-haunting-spirits

Note:  The author is a 30-ish female with a BA in creative writing and makes the best of it as a self proclaimed expert of health, wellness, and spirituality, not to mention how to rid your house of ghosts.

The scary part is how many of these charlatans exists and how many people fall into the abyss they create.

The g-subject under discussion is a rationalisation of the paranormal which is intended to provide moral authority and justification for ALL their arguments about everything. The p-word is a very generalised thing with nothing defined. Simply the idea that, for instance, sometimes dogs know their master has died or they can find their way home 200 miles when lost. I've heard some absolutely ridiculous attempted refutations of that kind of thing, where people will concoct the most ridiculous rationalisations for rejecting the evidence. The g-thing is different.

Different but the same.  Both subscribe to a belief that something inexplicable and anti-science is real and fundamentally true.

I won't bother refuting your dog story but to say the brain, of any critter, has no external powers.  

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?

Thanks for that. I read it as far as halfway through step three and got bored but I would certainly agree about the creative writing. I found it slightly creepy and inappropriate. Having said that, I don't reject any of the supposed manifestations of energy or whatever. I would be happy to assert myself over any evil spirits that happened to be lurking around. My wife, unlike me, is a Christian and she thinks she's seen several ghosts. It's just a matter of fact for her, that she THINKS she's seen them. I have no reason to doubt her. She's quite special and in tune with existence. She's intelligent, has a responsible job etc.

Home when the owner has moved and no longer lives where the dog lived. It can't happen these days ...... too many motorways.

I'm afraid I am sure that you don't know what "refute" means. All minds have that kind of quality. Animal and human. There is a great many surprising things in the universe that, when people have materialistic minds, they cannot accept because it seems wrong and incorrect to them, or they're told it's incorrect. As for anti-scientific, that's just your belief or perception.

They should probably get out more!

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.

OK so you didn't mean "refute". You used it earlier, definitely wrongly and you wouldn't know how to refute anything.

It's necessary to answer that kind of thing because it can give the wrong message to anyone reading, so words like "refute" and "prove" should be correctly used. Also, regarding randomness, Elroch agreed with my explanation to you and I do know that he knows more of the theory than I do.

You aren't a particularly pleasant person really, are you? I would suggest people must find you pretty unpleasant. Do you believe you're clever?

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.

Anyone here is an ally in some situations and not in others. That's perfectly natural since we have a mix of opinions here.

You are quite clearly the pompous and aggressive one. Also you definitely blotted your copybook, by being so unpleasant to Noodles. There was no need for it and you clearly showed what you are. I see you as stupid.

Disregarding that and pretending I didn't draw your attention to my opinion on your intellectual prowess, how would you propose to "refute" my opinions on the paranormal, since you insist you know what it means?

I noticed what I took to be a change in the direction of many worlds, I would say over the past two to three years at the most, in your thinking.

Can I ask you a question? What are these worlds? Are they metaphoric or existing in this idea?

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.

btickler has said the same to me. If and only if he still believes it, then you're one and the same. I consider you to be a cantankerous child, with a ridiculously inflated opinion of your own ability and nothing interesting to say. I find it quite sad how people deteriorate and am glad I'm not doing so in such a way, either mentally or physically. I did one of my 11 mile walks today. Only done two in four months because I've been both very busy and unwell: and was pleasantly pleased that it was only 4 minutes slower than the norm of 3 hrs 10 minutes and most importantly, no particular feelings of tiredness. I'm probably older than you.

I stick by what I said about you. You bear all the hallmarks of pomposity, opinionatedness, intolerance and aggression, which some people, I'm afraid, deteriorate towards, with age.