Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

This does not stop you being wrong. Finding the simplest opinion on a subject does not reliably find the right answer. Your "common sense" consists of starting with the wrong answer and then ignoring anything that would help you learn where you have gone wrong.

I understand that your ability to reason is limited, but you are capable of understanding that the ISS can be observed orbiting above the Earth at 5 miles per second - one orbit every 93 minutes or so. The Earth rotates much more slowly underneath it, so its path sees different locations every orbit.

You have said before you don't know what it is, but most other people do know what it is. It's very well-documented and observed.

I think it’s reasonable to say physical and emotional states can fluctuate in patterns. Sleep cycles, hormones, stress, and cognition clearly influence behavior. But that still doesn’t automatically validate every proposed “biorhythm” model. Detecting patterns and scientifically confirming them are two different things.

XR...waiting for elroch to tear me apart lol !

XD

There are certainly biological cycles! However, I believe that people who believe in biorhythms believe in a set of different rhythms with very precise lengths, which is a distortion of reality.

Regarding sleep cycles and other organization and the so-called Circadian rhythms - there's quite a lot of variation from person to person.
My own opinion is that sleep and exercise and eating cycles have much interpendence. And with various kinds of conditioning and habits and with other situational circumstances too.

Occam's Razor Elroch ---

heliocentric theory(s) require far too many assumptions !

Such as

the sun & moon are observed to be the same size - because they are the same size -

one must assume otherwise in order to believe otherwise .

Almost everyone on the planet understands that how big something appears (the angle it subtends) depends as much on its distance as on its actual size.

But not you.

yay noodles is back, now this is getting interesting again

The Moon is observed to be closer to Earth than the Sun is during total solar eclipses. Clearly, the Sun must be farther and therefore larger.
But by how much...?
Aristarchus of Samos did an experiment once.
When the Moon is exactly half-illuminated, it forms a right triangle with the Earth and the Sun with the right angle at the Moon. The Moon is a certain angle from the Sun in the sky at this point, and this is one of the other angles.
Aristarchus found this angle to be about 87°.
All right triangles with an 87° angle have the same ratio of side lengths. In this case, the hypotenuse is about tan(87°)=19 times longer than the short leg. Thus, the Sun is 19 times farther and larger than the Moon. Right?
Not quite.
Instruments in Aristarchus's time were not very precise. The actual angle was later found to be about 89°51'. Thus, the Sun is tan(89°51')=about 380 times farther and larger than the Moon. And indeed, the exact number is somewhere around this. The Sun is 400.4 times larger than the Moon.
Also note that if the Sun and Moon were the same size and distance from Earth the Moon would not be a half-illuminated phase this far from the Sun!

Ah, but that uses geometry, a dark art inaccessible to flat Earthers, and precise observation and scientific inference (two things that seem alien to them).

furthermore - heliocentric theory(s) assumes a solid moon - like a dusty rock ball - yet one can observe a semitransparent moon -- "blue sky through the moon" during the day -

they say "you are seeing blue sky in front of the moon" -

if that were true - the moon would be perpetually hidden via "blue sky" if it exists in a vacuum of space some 239,000 miles away !

This "blue sky" - sunlight scattered by the atmosphere - will not obscure light.
It just brightens places with less light.

it takes one observing the moon for themselves and coming to their own conclusions -

moon phases - solar/lunar eclipses - tides via the moon -etc. etc.

far too many inconsistencies - discrepancies & contradictions -

for me - at any rate !

And where exactly are the inconsistencies?

But your level of relevant expertise and competence is very poor, compared to say Aristarchus. That's why you are one of the few who gets things that badly wrong.

Correct understanding explains the precise moon phases as a consequence of the orbits whose exact form is given Newton's law of gravitation. And you have no sane explanation of them.

No, nothing is truly random. Everything you have ever done was on purpose. If you flip a coin its 50 50 right. Not random, its still always 50 50. So no.

Random means you can't predict it, not whatever you are thinking of.

So yes.

It is worth saying that probability theory deals with what I think you have in mind - a coin for which you don't know the probability for the next flip. But if there is a probability distribution over a set of coin models each of which has its own probability of heads - is that random enough? - there is still an overall probability of heads!