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

so ur saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is dumb (or like munchins small-minded) ? 

No Lola. I said no such thing. The Law is very true. Please read again. 

i gotta go to sleep now (who wansta go ? lol !!) we'kin talk more in da morning  .

wait for me!

hism blism...mmm...uhh whah ?

i think that you treat matter and energy to be 2 different things so your statement makes sense.
but many people think of them as one so is also true that the U is constant. just 2 ways of saying the same thing

this is where i lost you..
mustang:"What of new particles popping into existence from nothing ? Perhaps they do - but in an organized nature and not random at all !!"

<<Sillver wrote <<Nobody I’ve seen agrees. Opti was out of line. Seems he lost it over needless frustration.>>

You can think that if you like but it was pretty obvious to me what was happening and it was identical to what happened in a thread ten or twelve years ago. Same kind of manipulation and constant misrepresentation of other people's comments.

At that time, years ago, I realised there was a "personality" reason for it. It may be wrong to comment on it here but the alternative is constant manipulation by someone who may not fully understand what he's doing but who certainly doesn't understand what friendship is and whose agenda is self-assertion and the projection of an image of, more or less, intellectual perfection.

I've never pretended that. I'm saying I can see what's happening, sure. Yes, so that's a projection too and it may be thought of as various things including conceit, but in reality I'm being honest. The guy is manipulative and makes mistakes in logic, even if it's only regarding prioritisation of ideas or concepts. But that certainly means he prioritises his own ideas, ignores anything that really challenges him, pretends to answer points that don't challenge him and is allowed by consensus to get away with it.

Just ask yourself why Sillver commented that in his opinion, Elroch doesn't try make his comments clear, I also thought that, I agreed with Sillver and Elroch made a sustained personality attack on me but not on Sillver. Imo the guy is barking. That's two stops past Dagenham or rather, three now because they added a station to the District Line.

So I'm out. Bye for now.

WAIT !

opti, i didnt say that. it was mustang quote. i try to stay out of the drama : )

but i think that you didnt realize elrochs blunder yet.
..or you'd be all over him and right on topic ; )

I haven't read the thread for several days. I didn't read it before my previous post. There is no need to make every attempt to discuss randomness into a physics discussion. Randomness is a word in English before it's a word in physics. Not answering my question about "what is a timed universe supposed to mean?" when he was criticising Reginald Kapp's ideas was the last straw. It is simply a complete discourtesy to blather on about a topic that I would need to google and even then couldn't be sure I understood what was in his mind. Basically I was reminded of the previous time I fell out with him around 12 years ago or so. I thought then there was something very wrong. If you read what I wrote about debating on Facebook, you can probably imagine that I came across hundreds of people who lost arguments and couldn't accept it. Sometimes they'd lose an argument in five different ways and then boot me out of a group for it. There's no point talking to them. This one is intelligent and knows a lot of physics but he can't seem to relate to people, thinks he's perfect and makes a lot of mistakes. What's the point? 

happy ur back opti

Opti - This is all nothing new to me. I may well be in agreement with your points on logic and behavior but it’s just all rather frivolous imo thinking anyone is going to change their ways at this stage. 

Quite, which is why I don't want to talk to him any more and since he's allowed by others to dominate the thread, I would prefer to be out. Thanks for your comments though, and also to Sillver. I appreciate your point of view but you'll enjoy it more if I don't comment, more than likely. There would only be more friction.

Well, I can see I have friends here and I really do appreciate it and love you for it but honestly, I have to do about two months' work in three weeks and I don't have the time for this. It's supposed to be pleasant and relaxing!

I will have to take it from you that there are Ladybird books on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and the experiments in which Bell's inequality is violated. I learnt these things from other sources myself.

Who had "known for ages" that matter could be created and destroyed?

(I thought no-one did until the early 20th century, when Einstein's E=mc^2 led to the realisation that matter might be converted to other forms of energy, as later confirmed through nuclear physics).

Perhaps this -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

For much of the history of the natural sciencespeople have contemplated the exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was built of discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory of matter, independently appeared in ancient Greeceand ancient India among Buddhists, Hindus and Jains in 1st-millennium BC.^[6] Ancient philosophers who proposed the particulate theory of matter include Kanada (c. 6th–century BC or after),^[7]Leucippus (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470–380 BC).^[8]

True randomness is purely a philosophical question and has nothing to do with physics. Most here understand this, are not fooled into thinking otherwise. 

Randomness is about unpredictability (it's how it is defined).

Physics reveals that certain specific events are entirely unpredictable (the reasoning is non-trivial but is established knowledge), answering the question of the title.

This is independent of any claims about randomness in cases where it is impractical to use physics (even though fundamentally it determines all behaviour in our Universe). For example, predicting the result of a horse race.