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

"If pattern prediction is impossible then so is pattern recognition and therefore we have a series of events which are not distinguishable from truly random events."

it may work as a 'catch all definition' but i think that its very important to distinguish TR from apparent randomness because they are 2 different things, and mixing them together is nothing but trouble.

How can you distinguish them? If there's no way to do so then to all intents and purposes we have true randomness.

I think one is under-estimating scientific resources to claim otherwise. It's also logically problematic because true randomness is an abstract idea, like infinity or even zero. We can never spot an infinity and put it in a box. Same with randomness, except in context. The context is a series of events. So if we have a series of observations of events but it provides no data capable of allowing prediction of further observations, no matter how many observations we have done, then we assume random behaviour. There is no way to differentiate the behaviour we observe from truly random behaviour.

I think it's a mistake to ask the question. It's like saying "we have a concept of infinity but how can we observe it?"

Infinity, as a concept, is a mathematical boundary and it's used as such in mathematical processes such as integration and differentiation in calculus. I believe that the proposal that we should be able to differentiate truly random behaviour from behaviour that we have no way of differentiating from truly random behaviour is actually a logical error.

I would say that if Elroch were cleverer than he is, he would have been able to explain it too.

Humpty sat on a fence, thinking there is no way to know. Humpty won’t ever fall off, being the unknowing elephant. 
Errors in logic are most prevalent. 

On principle, if one event were to be truly random, logically others will follow. Over the course of time these random events multiply exponentially. By now the Cosmos would be in chaos unable to maintain stability. If the possibility exists for truly random events to occur reality would not be. 

The difficulty is understanding the difference between an abstract concept which is understood to refer to a type of behaviour that seems to look like randomness, and the behaviour itself.

We know that one's a concept and the other is an assumed reality that we can't actually capture. So in effect we're comparing two ideas, neither of which refer to something we can see. But there's no need to panic. Both of these ideas refer to something which there is every reason to think is real.

This thing about one random event leading to more and ultimately to chaos is a good attempt to use fantasy to defeat logic but it doesn't work when it's seen that there is an inherent stability to the universe, atomic structures and so on and so forth.

Stuff is the way it is- ordered. 
No getting around or about, it’s truly that simple. 

It’s called disorder. And once it starts only further disorder ensues. Any school boy can tell us. No. No. If random events occurred, nature is not selective and certainly can not be restrictive. 

yes, i get that part now. but why is it difficult to exclude general randomness? how about something simplistic along the line..
"an event without predetermined results"

Determination has absolutely nothing to do about randomness. 

randomness would be a off topic thing popping right out of nowhere.

Thus is really a simple matter. Whether or not something/anything is predetermined is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the event is random. 

Far too simplistic is the notion that randomness and uncertainty share the same corner. 

because true randomness is an abstract idea

physics gurus have tried he!!abunches to quantify consciousness w no real success (ive watched enuf YT to know lol !). sooo...dont we hafta treat our hot little pursuita TR (vectoring SA particles in S-T) apart from the abstract of thought ? i mean arent we dealing w two diff curiosos here ?

and mixing them together is nothing but trouble (AR vs TR).

making me thinka that one math theory rebuttal where it doesnt exist until we discover it (consciousness). then its here and we cant unwind it (for better or for worse). or wuz it always there waiting for us to find it ? OR did we hafta create it for it to exist ?

sadly, the intellectuals go into greater and greater levels of complexity because the can never see the simple truth of something.

Determinism (note the word) is the exact opposite of randomness.

Suppose some event is going to happen and the result could be 0 or 1. If there is no way of knowing which it will be, the event is random. If the result is certain to be 0, the event is deterministic.

so true randomness exists in the mind of the observer. QED

I would say you are interpreting "true randomness" as what is normally just called "randomness" by people working in this area. It means fundamental unpredictability. For example, while a pseudorandom number generator might appear random, the outputs can be predicted entirely reliably by someone who has knowledge of the algorithm. More subtly, they can also be predicted by someone who took some position on what algorithms might be used and observed a large number of examples to work out what the algorithm might be. (See note at the end of this post)

This is the sort of thing that is eliminated as a possibility for quantum randomness by Bell's experiments.

While it is important to be clear about from what viewpoint something is to be assessed as random, the distinction between my suggested definition of "true randomness" and your more established notion of randomness is not as important as the distinction between randomness and pseudorandomness.

Note: there is an interesting theoretical result that there is a single artificial intelligence algorithm that, if you present it with a sequence of bits generated by ANY program, will eventually work out how to predict the bits with 100% accuracy and do so from then on.