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

It's worth noting that the discussion of a form of randomness in physics that definitely cannot ever go away is an answer to the point you made in your opening post when you said:

"4. Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it."

It is this hypothesis which is not true for the quantum systems considered. The randomness is definitely inherent rather than being just a matter of us not being aware of some hidden information. Your thinking has a long pedigree: it is close to what Einstein hypothesised, but which was eventually proven wrong.

In physics there are events that happen that are very random from any point of view until after they have happened. One type of example is nuclear decays that cause radioactivity.

As I just wrote,

<<<Yes, I was discussing that in an earlier post. One thing that I disagree with is the notion that after they have happened, they don't appear random. Where does that come from? If it's random then it's random and randomness is all about appearance because appearance governs predictability.>>>

A random event is random after it happened because it's part of a random sequence.

Ukee, hes just jealous that u have the bestest thread on Mister Chess Dot Com. lol !!

While the Sun is for human purposes

thx for this admission...yee !

The revelations within the topic can take you deep as chess, that was a surprise to me.

My nirvana can be found with simplicity, and quietness. 

The vibration of your own psyche should be listened to carefully ongoing basis.

Philosophers and poet's are allowed to stare off into the haze.. I like that. 

I accept that I have expressed that in a way that is uncommon.

However, one nice intuitive way of looking at it is to follow those who created the theory of probability in order to settle a dispute about gambling. The mathematical theory turned out to be the right one for quantifying all randomness once it had been sufficiently generalised.

While you can only make a profit on betting on rolling a 6 with a fair six-sided die if you are given better than 5:1 odds, after the die has been rolled you can confidently bet on what the outcome was at any odds because you know what it is (perhaps with someone who has not seen the die, so assesses the odds differently). 

This is quantitatively the same as betting on some future event that is certain because there is no randomness in either case.

"A random event is random after it happened because it's part of a random sequence."

True randomness need to be identified by its source. and thats the pink box that you dont like to talk about : )

personally ? i feel s/o needsa couple days in the bunker...or quarantined. i mean call it w/e but it'll probly do em some good.

opti, i wouldnt waste my time. not until he show understanding of the topic as intended. iow.. he takes you for a needles mind ride to nowhere.

I dunno what's happening. I'm sure you're writing with a Barbadian accent Sillver ...

Everything is affected by something else.

Note the verb affect was used and not the noun effect. 
Thinking events occur independently of each other, that perhaps between 1 and a 100 causes are responsible- or even more nonsensical that none exist,  is just so much fodder. Witness the previous pages with all it’s wonderful repetitive disagreement over just what is randomness. 
No worries though as it doesn’t exist. 
Not to fret or need to get huffed about as neither does determinism.

Neither abstract concept describes the real world - which is a ordered Cosmos. Independent origination works far better to describe observations. No need for all this speculation about whether causes exist or which events can be predicted with accuracy. 
Finally, the question is purely philosophical by nature. The joker who interjects physics into every discussion, insisting on our education, is trolling and of a controlling nature. His hijacking the thread with spammed “physics” has turned me off.

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/searching-randomness

Although the concept of randomness is ubiquitous, it turns out to be difficult to generate a truly random sequence of events. The need for "pseudorandomness" in various parts of modern science, ranging from numerical simulation to cryptography, has challenged our limited understanding of this issue and our mathematical resources. In this talk, Professor Jean Bourgainexplores some of the problems of pseudorandomness and tools to address them.

Note: The topic is far encompassing. This being a mathematical approach randomness can be seen from any number of perspectives.

 it turns out to be difficult to generate a truly random sequence of events>>

It turns out?  It's impossible by first principles. So the first sentence doesn't impress. To produce a random series it's necessary to read an external source.

Explanation: if I were writing an algorithm to generate a pseudo-random series, I would try to work out what proportion of random numbers in any nominal size band bore some relationship to existing patterns of numbers in a truly random distribution. That is because I'd want to write an algorithm that produced a list of numbers and checked each one for mathematical relationships with previous numbers in the list and when it found them, it it retained only the same proportion of numbers which carried a relationship as would be expected in random behaviour, and of course that would be programmed to deviate according to a Bell curve.

That may be the easy part! The difficulty is actually generating a random series without reading an external source or writing  a list. I think lists have normally been used. All in all, it seems far too much bother and reading an external source has to be the way to go. But that is NOT "generating" a series of random numbers.

Quite impossible but still they try. A summit is broached thinking it’s the top of the world. 

If we can not generate a random series... how are we to recognize one ?

To be quite honest, I don't even believe in artificial intelligence. It can only be pseudo-intelligence, until we discover how our minds work and what our minds really do.

pervy uke... 

Pseudo-randomness is used principally because it is quick and easy to generate on a computer, which traditionally had no high quality source of natural randomness available without additional hardware. However, there are some excellent sources of randomness available, and these are now routinely used: eg modern Intel CPUs have a source of natural randomness built into them.

One high quality source of randomness is background radio noise. A good way to use this is to do analog to digital conversion of the voltage from a broadband radio receiver and then to take the least significant bit.

The Intel hardware I mentioned uses another source of randomness which is temperature. Again, the least significant bit is used.

In the Intel chips, the high quality source of natural randomness is only used to seed a pseudo-random number generator, but if you choose to take only one random sample for each time you seed the random number generator, you are effectively using the raw source of true randomness directly rather than relying on pseudorandomness.

Note that both tiny fluctuations in radio signals and tiny fluctuations in temperature readings are themselves the result of the superposition of quantum level randomness, so it could be absolutely impossible to predict.

In the old days when I started using computers you could seed a random generator even then, but I never knew whether it was seeded from an external source. Your description makes perfect sense.

It was also very laborious and if you programmed a new seed it slowed down already over-stretched computation.