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

nice. we can easily troubleshoot this if you keep working with me. but i think it would be best if you allow me to point you in the right direction and make your own discovery.

can you pinpoint the one major difference between your own definition of D and the one bellow?

" all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."

A quite an acceptable definition in my book. A difference I have is in the use of the term “causes”.  I’d prefer to use “affects” as it references a broader scope. Finding a cause suggests singular events. Whereas affects suggests anything of influence. 

“Causes” easily ends up in circular religious debate as the term instantly (and incorrectly) becomes associated with ID. It’s assumed a designed universe is all predetermined. The opposite is assumed (again incorrectly) for those who do not “believe in ID - that the universe happened by chance and is random in nature. 
Neither concept is descriptive. The terms are polarizing and lead nowhere in search of true randomness. We can see and smell stuff that looks random but it’s quite impossible for us to prove it’s existence- outside of satisfying its own definitions.

The world appears differently once the idea of “causes” is discarded. I’m not saying they don’t exist - they absolutely do. It’s the image the term conjures - that a cause or perhaps two through dozens are responsible. Specific, singular events get labeled as a cause or the cause or perhaps no causes exist for some phenomena.
However, everything in the universe to some extent affects everything else. A greater harmony exists. The world does not appear so random and chaotic knowing it’s not this or that causing such and such to happen. The universe is going about it’s business in an orderly fashion today. Same as before.

Would like to have a read !   Love the subtitle. 

An ordered universe does not mean a predetermined one. An idea that appears quite difficult to understand much less agree or disagree with. Same as saying a random universe does not mean it wasn’t created 🤗

sabines a TP researching quantum gravity. she got her doctorate dissertating black holes.

There IS some really good theoretical research in physics being done. Not concerned with verifying what’s known. Lee Smolin is a maverick that comes to mind. 

Yes. The author is well aware of the problems in D. His way of saying not convincing.

Or invite colleagues to join you and become a founding member of an innovative research group as Lee Smolin did - The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

there is no randomness in the universe

I thought about that black hole idea, that I might be in someone else’s black hole and came to a conclusion. I am not in a black hole. Can’t speak for you. Perhaps you really are in one (doesn’t mean we all are) but it is Your black hole and yours alone- nobody else’s !

For me

The difference between randomness and true randomness is as follows-

randomness refers to the behavior of singular events. We make definition of what qualifies. Things look and smell random. Lists are made of what’s random or not.

True randomness refers to the general behavior of  the universe. As a whole- is the universe behaving randomly as it appears to be on smaller scales?

For me, TR is the grander question, not just the micro but at the macro. I’ve heard the explanation, large uncertainty’s cancel themselves out. Well good for them but Its not true for the reasons given !

Perhaps a discovery- it’s often not about the conclusion but disagreement over the reasons. “ You can be right for all the wrong reasons” 🌝

Or you can be Wrong for all the right reasons 👍

Yes, yes I knew there was a logical explanation. There always is. What you say is all very true. What’s it’s an explanation of remains the mystery !

is the model of the universe- the displacement of matter- is it random? Seems to be a good starting point. Our measurements, do they say the universe in the billions of years of existence , progressed in an orderly (but not predetermined) fashion... is the structure in some way ordered? Or is the structure random? It sure appears to be completely random by most definitions.

howbout Optiverse ?

Without being too fussy, the two are compatible. However, if you try to define "cause" in yours, you may find you get to the notion that there are things in the past about which sufficient information is known to be able to deduce the event in question. And that can be rephrased compactly by saying it is possible to predict the event.

It's worth mentioning that the observability of information about past causes is extremely important. Without this, you can imagine that in the past there is a complete recipe for the results of all future possible experiments, which happens to be carefully designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics,  but that this recipe is impossible to directly detect in any way (it just permeates all of space-time after its creation).

The reason this is not a way round the key results disproving determinism is that in order to get the right results, when you do a Bell's experiment and make two observations of entangled photons at random angles, in order to get the right results, at each of the observations you need to know what angle the other observation was made. This is a breach of causality (since the choices of angle can be made simultaneously (in any frame) so there is no time to communicate them between the two points).

It has the same effect as the unclosable loophole that says that although it might appear that you have complete choice of the angles you pick (eg by using any source of randomness of your choice at each location) they are really all predetermined by a global conspiracy.

Got it. Simple explanation is best. I like the parts where you always refer back to Bells experiments and how they prove randomness. Little doubt as it’s all so well predicted.

All the “reasons” you give for things being the way they are I had never thought of as they make so little sense. Upon contemplation I have to agree with myself. 😟

The universe is not determined.

The term becomes associated with ID - the idea that causes for all events are controlled/destined. 

The universe never behaves in a random manner yet new events come into existence.

Independent Origination 

The universe may have random characteristics. I don’t know for certain but don’t think so.

What I do know as well as many others is that it has not been proven, only that observation meets definition. Sure looks and smells like it.

So naturally a distrust arises over any explanation that makes claim. It might be true, randomness permeates the universe, but not for any of the reasons thus far given.

Or all of that is so much Alice in Wonderland