Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

I discern what you did there. By utilising the word ‘beam,’ you are alluding to the Afshar experiment, the double quantum eraser experiment and a nimiety of other things for which I shall not enumerate. Now we must relate these quantum mechanical delicacies to the intrinsic value of happiness, and long live the gracious grand unified theory of everything. General relativity would prove to be great glory as it does not transcend our daily perceptions all too much, yet it would be dwindling in popularity. Meanwhile, Aristotle would be yammering on about how the universe was not like a clockwork and be introducing the notion of pseudorandom interpretations from the people of his time. Philosophy would be almost a cliche in this hypothetical universe, leading to a mass of people to instantaneously forget what they were digressing on about, which is the case with me. Except philosophy is completely beyond me and to illustrate that, I have devised a song. 
philosophy is completely beyond me.
Quantum mechanical universe brings us such glee

For pessimists, it will Outline their lack of sagacity

But I am the one optimist who has attained complete stupidity

The shut up and calculate phrase is so aurally pleasing to one’s ears; in fact, it damaged my cochlea so austerely that I could merely hearken to Beethoven’s 7th Symphony, 2nd movement allegretto. I can just imagine Richard Feynman banging the bongo drums with the same beat as the musical masterpiece, in Copenhagen. His bongo drums would be inscribed all over with an untidy scrawl of drawings of roses, the pristine sinusoid curves and mathematical equations. Perhaps there would even be a fine piece of evidence that he had victories valiantly in the Putnam math competition. But of course, this is merely to be taken into consideration if he were egotistical enough.

The phrase ‘phenomena of the large numbers’ reminds me of Dirac’s large numbers hypothesis. I sincerely apologise if someone has already mentioned this. It happens to be that Paul Dirac was obsessed with large dimensionless physical constants and as such, had an influence on fine tuning universe aspects and a multitude of theological and physics aspects. After toying around with these constants, Dirac found that the gravitational constant varied across time. Toying around in the pure sciences is profoundly important, as many mathematical Olympiad contestants will know. By pure sciences, we establish mathematics as being at the top of this hierarchy, because of Gauss’ universally known quote that math was the queen of all sciences. What is the king of all sciences? How about the bishop, the knight or the rook? Well, I discuss that partially in my profile.

Anyway, this Note additionally reminds me of Benford’s law, something that data scientists are wrapping their prefrontal cortex around. It can be utilised as a means of teaching middle school or high school students about the base 10 logarithms and its idiosyncratic but intriguing applications. Because my speech has already digressed, I will leave this link for the inquisitive reader:

https://brilliant.org/wiki/benfords-law/

"lol.. beautiful mouth birdie, not bad on short notice."
...not a selfie 

"I can just imagine Richard Feynman banging the bongo drums with the same beat as the musical masterpiece, in Copenhagen."

actually this is an excellent answer with insight to the mechanics of randomness.
looking at random from a different angle now, its basically just a 'choice' between several possibilities, and not to be speculative the 'choice' may be either deterministic or chaotic (for lack of better word)
that also explain my dilemma about the proportions because if i go back to the coin flips, the 'choice' is govern by the laws of physics and given both obverse and reverse are identical, it just make sense for the proportions to be as well.

going back to a single particle... i cant think of any 'mechanism' that will cheat some laws of physics and make a chaotic choice.

look, determinism sux. no one wants it. well, maybe a convict does, but that a different conversation, so maybe there's another way out of it without relaying on true randomness. maybe human behavior like was suggested here.. lol

if you ever find a 1943 red penny save it because it worth several $100,000's . (in 43 they used all the copper for the war and made it from some white metal instead)

'The phrase ‘phenomena of the large numbers’ reminds me of Dirac’s large numbers hypothesis.'

any idea for the reasoning? It is mentioned here... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dKvoa2ITw

true randomness doesn't exist in numbers. so u can throw using theoretical math out the window when trying to explain nature. it'll just be a false positive.

they say thats why roulette is such a dangerous game for casinos. so they hellalimit making bets directly to the #. its all Norman Leigh's fault (France 1966). lol !

@ Uke.. Are you surprised that the subject of astronomy has not come out yet? Talk about randomness, that realm is filled with it. Or so it seems.

Anyhow, here is another strange observation of mine. And perhaps what makes it so strange, is that I’ve only noticed it in the past couple of years.

By my calculations, eight times out of ten, I’m the first in line at a stop light. Meaning before it turns green, and the person next to me almost always waits for me to go first. 

It doesn't matter if I’m driving my personal car, or a company semi. Same result, being local or on the road. Always doing the speed limit. Almost wish I could run some kind of experiment on this type of thing. Much like Elroch’s digital dice.

Record a good sample of empirical data. It is very easy for an impression to be wrong.

If you seek the insight behind the key aspect as to why G varies with time, then I recommend the answer displayed on Physics Stack Exchange:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/500308/what-is-the-justification-for-diracs-large-numbers-hypothesis

There aren’t exactly a nimiety of websites dedicated to the hypothesis contrary to the aforementioned probability theory (I suppose it forms an integral part of QM). Yet, I entrust that you will find a decent selection.

that also explain my dilemma about the proportions because if i go back to the coin flips, the 'choice' is govern by the laws of physics and given both obverse and reverse are identical, it just make sense for the proportions to be as well.

but there's nothing truly random about coins obeying the laws of physics. would you expect identical proportions if that scenario was absolutely random?

going back to a single particle... i cant think of any 'mechanism' that will cheat some laws of physics and make a chaotic choice.

Maybe your single particle is just confused

'look, determinism sux. no one wants it. well, maybe a convict does, but that a different conversation'

why would a convict want determinism to be true?

'...and the person next to me almost always waits for me to go first.'

sounds like a reason for concern. lol.

I heard that Oregonians drive super politely. is that true?

The relationship between probabilities and the real world is an (irresolvable) philosophical problem. In terms of Frequentist probability, there are no long runs in the real Universe, just finite ones (at least at any point in time) so no long run statistics ever actually apply.

When you try to see how closely a probabilistic prediction will approximate the real data, you find the meaning comes down to things like there is a certain probability of the real result being within a certain range of the probabilistic result. Then you need to interpret the meaning of that new probability. That leads you to a third one which needs interpreting and so on!

In terms of Bayesian probability, things are a bit simpler. You quantify beliefs and the way in which these beliefs change is uniquely determined by a small set of assumptions which are pretty inarguable. But this too provides no guarantees about what will happen, just that, in a sense, your quantitative beliefs are consistent and rational in the way they take account of information.

One very old idea is that when you don't know what is true, you make as neutral assumptions as possible. So if you know that if a die can give you 6 results and you know nothing else, the best assumption is that all 6 possibilities are equally likely. However, when you move on to taking into account empirical data to revise your model of reality, this fails to be adequate.

Say for a coin (to simplify), if all flips of the coin are assumed to be independent, then there are a range of possibilities, each given by the probability that the coin will come up heads. Because there are only 2 mutually exclusive possibilities, the proportion of heads tells you absolutely everything. The problem is that you need to start with some belief of how likely all these possibilities are (to be revised later by empirical data).

For example, you might say there is 99% chance that a coin is fair, and 1% chance that it is biased, and then you need to pick some way to distribute that 1% across the other possibilities. Your choice. This is the hard truth of picking a prior in Bayesian statistics: there is no right answer. If you start by being really suspicious, you might start with the belief that there was 50% chance of the coin being fair, and the other 50% might be mostly concentrated at high probabilities of heads or high probabilities of tails. 

Given one of these starting points, empirical data revises your beliefs by being more consistent with some of the possibilities than others. Bayes rule is how you do it. The nice thing is that whatever (reasonable) prior you start with, when you have a large enough amount of data, your final beliefs are pretty close to the same. This is the way empirical data overwhelms the prior in the end. Good news for anyone who wants to make sense of the world.

@king, astronomy or astrology ;? here's that eagle carrying a fish that appears like a monkey's head i told you about.. its not edited, just still images from a video. (the talons combines with the fish gives that random illusion of a head)

sorry, i totaly messed this one up. was thinking of the benford law and meant to ask if you know the reason for why this pattern happen?

why do you assume that all possibilities are equally likely? I'm not referring to a physical bias to the die which obey the law of physics. (or a bias to empirical data results from pseudorandom) instead, assume an absolute random... why do we take for granted an equal distribution? (large numbers included)

Yes of course, rationality usually wins the day in the end. And I prefer that course as well. Still, challenging perceptions is a dominant pastime of mine.

Take for instance our friend Silver. He thinks it’s polite for the guy waiting at the green light with me to chill until I drive away first. Oddly enough, I never thought of it that way. My perception is that they just don’t want to take a leadership role. I’m offended by that conclusion. So until my perception can change on the matter, I’m somewhat stuck. 

And so I’ve relegated the issue a random value. When people mill around in crowded places, it’s much the same thing to me. (Meaning walking around at the grocery store etc..) There are those that will crowd you, and those that will give you space. That reflection makes sense to me, the transference is damn near the same. 

why would a convict want determinism to be true?

because no one could be blamed for wrong doings. it would make all our actions inevitable?

...enter free will and how it all ties in w/ emotion.