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

The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are very—perhaps infinitely^[11]—many universes. It is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised. This is intended to resolve some paradoxesof quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox^{[5]:462[2]:118} and Schrödinger's cat,^[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe. Wiki

The EPR "paradox" is not a paradox (it was once mistaken for one, but is merely an example of the quantum world being unintuitive). Thus it does not really need "resolution", nor does MWI really resolve it (it is a model which is compatible with it, like all the other valid interpretations).

Schroedinger's cat is now recognised as a somewhat flawed thought experiment. The cat needs to be cooled to extremely close to absolute zero for quantum superposition to occur, when it is stone dead in all cases!

"MV and MW share being multiple but they are describing quite different abstract perceptions"

yea, MW is a QM thing, and MV is just a healthy imagination, lol something like that..

Max Tegmark classified hypotheses associated with the vague term "multiverse" into 4 separate classes, while Brian Greene goes further with no fewer than 9 separate classes of hypothesis. These include MWI and (likely) whatever you are referring to by "MV".

my bad. wrong link. think its this one

It’s hypothesized many worlds could exist in a singular universe, but not the other way around.

Really cool thing

Oh really?  A fact now is it?

Statements as these, and your propensity to define topics in a singular manner explains why you can not be taken straight up. “It’s a fact that the universe exists in vast expanses beyond the optical horizon” is pure speculation. That you present this as fact (most all would only speculate) reveals much. Discussion with you quickly reaches walls, the walls you build and insist all discussion to live by. It’s been explained. Now try reading it again.

You continually broach subjects that honestly I have not a clue as to their relevancy regarding true randomness. What you say often has validity, but what does stuff beyond the event horizon, if it exists or not, have to do with the topic?

well there 123 pages of messages here, dont expect me to read them all. but heisenberg uncertainty principle has something to do with randomness. everything can be known before they happened if you could know atomic movements of everthing in the universe so this would remove randomness. but this principle says electrons can be anywhere at anytime and there are uncertain things.

“Logically necessary” does not make for fact.

That you so insist greatly diminishes credibility.

Yet another example of the numerous assumptions made in all your statements that try to explain reality for us.

Reposted - clear explanation that the uncertainty principle is Not  concerned about things being random and says absolutely nothing on the topic. 
The uncertainty that Heisenberg is explaining is not uncertainty over whether or not events happen randomly. We can measure both speed and location of things with extreme accuracy. What he tells us is the mere act of measurement, that of measuring the speed affects its location and vice versa. The uncertainty lies in we can never know precisely in time the exact speed and location, only one or the other.

The uncertainty principle says that there is always randomness in properties of a quantum object (also true for larger objects, but the uncertainty becomes insignificant). Even the name indicates this: uncertainty is randomness. (Tying this back to the standard definition, uncertainty in a quantity at a specific time means you cannot make a precise prediction of that quantity at that time (that time could be now).

You absolutely cannot both accurately know the position and velocity of an quantum object. One way to elaborate this is that every state that has a precise velocity is a combination of states with a wide variety of positions and every state that has a precise position is a combination of states with a wide variety of velocities.

The repost was for gd who clearly makes assumption that because the term “uncertainty” is being used it must have something to do with randomness- as he so stated.

I think we have all gone wrong by expressing things in ways that make it difficult for others to accept them. You have got better at this, @Optimissed.

Communication is not just about saying stuff that is right: it is about saying it in a way that is received, understood and accepted by others. I don't claim particular skill at this!

With all due respect, that would be because it does.

Search google for "randomness" and the second definition is "unpredictability".

Do the same for "uncertainty" and one of the synonyms is "unpredictability".

Spot the common theme.

Yes. It’s all there. Ain’t it grand how modern theorists can twist and turn old ideas  to match and fix new ones. Heisenberg with his original hypothesis was not addressing randomness and it’s possibility. It is today’s theorists interpreting the principle, suggesting the idea proves things happen in a random manner.

Heisenberg developed his hypothesis never mentioning the terms associated with randomness. It is only modern day that it’s made claim - “he’s really talking about randomness” gets made.

Modern thought suggests randomness is related to the ability of prediction.

All good. Stuff qualifies as random after meeting the definition.

What is truly amazing is that some here truly believe it as fact. Leading physicists all say it “can’t be proven”,  only that it sure looks and smells like it.

mustang, hes talking about general randomness now. and it is closely related to uncertainty

There is nothing uncertain in our ability to measure velocity and location. When we measure one we find the other has been affected. Both can not be known simultaneously. An interpretation of the phenomenon gets made -nature behaves in a random fashion. But this was not the topic of Heisenbergs principle.