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

Perhaps you missed the part where physics determined that there are things that can definitely not be predicted, regardless of how much information you have. These things satisfy the definition of random - that they cannot be predicted.

Here is a mainstream article about the latest and best experiment that can be used to conclude that the real world cannot be deterministic:

Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment (New Scientist)

When it’s all been scraped away much of this comes down to a priori beliefs. When ideas as determinism are tossed in the issue is usually one of fundamental belief -  A Creator exists or not. 
From there follows all the standard retort. If the universe was not created it must be random. Either or convoluted thinking. Once it’s believed all originated by chance we see the same theme for all explanations. 
Origin did not occur by Design nor by Chance. When this fundamental is understood a step will be taken towards understanding order, that true randomness remains as abstract thought and not descriptive of the real world. 

your barking at the wrong tree

"The classical argument is that things like quantum effects are determined by hidden variables"

this argument was resolved long time ago..

If you disagree with something I wrote, can you please let me know where you thought I made a mistake and what it is?

So far as I can see, Sillver is arguing for the possibility of determinism, so I thought it would be a good idea to point that out. He says randomness may not exist. OK, so I pointed out that would exclude free will too, since many people's free will is random in that it isn't something they plan carefully. Free will for most people is doing things we like doing because they make us feel good or better. But you can leave that out if you like. Your job is to show where and how I was confused. Are you, for instance, arguing for something else completely that hasn't been mentioned in this conversation yet?

Regarding causes, I know it's difficult to read everything people write all the time but recently I made a point about causality and you said exactly the same thing two or three posts later, probably thinking no-one had mentioned it, although I thought at the time it was your way of agreeing by putting something in your own words. It was about the universe causing itself.

So you need to make yourself clear when you say someone is confused, and support your argument, so we can all know what it is you're talking about.

Yes indeed, something is regarded as random if it can't be predicted. I made that clear a few thousand posts ago. That's the definition of randomness. If you want to talk about something that isn't randomness, then do so. At these points my mother, rest her soul, used to point out that she could make very good rice puddings and it's true .... she could. They were lovely and milky and moist and very slightly crisp on top and round the edges, and slightly burned. I hope I'm not doing anything wrong here .... you seem to want to change the subject so I wanted to join in.

On the whole, this topic is like herding cats, as they say. Just when you think you're reaching some sort of communication, a person shows that they just aren't following or they introduce something that came straight out of their heads and isn't relevant, just because they don't like to be tied down to thinking accurately and in context.

"So far as I can see, Sillver is arguing for the possibility of determinism, so I thought it would be a good idea to point that out. He says randomness may not exist. OK, so I pointed out that would exclude free will too"

kinda. the possibility do exist, thats a fact. but as for herding cats.. i think that our understanding of determinism is very different than elrochs. i said that before, but im not sure if you noticed that.

Yes, if you mean the stuff I have been referring to that showed that QM could not be explained by local variables. And "the classical argument" is roughly the hypothesis proposed by Einstein and others that everything can be explained by some deterministic theory.

(Usually the word "hidden" is included, because they would have to be as yet undetected or even indetectable. But this became irrelevant when it was shown no such variables could ever suffice to explain the weirdness of QM).

yes, bell told us that a long time ago. but im not sure why you keep lecturing me about it.

Randomness being defined as something that can’t be predicted.  

All I can dooo is briefly shake the ole noggin. How trite. Such limited thinking leads exactly to this point. 

I will side with the spontaneous factor,  just not the mea culpa one.

Your statement makes sense, however I should like to dig deeper on the matter..

I believe that in time a randomness factor can be aligned with any spontaneous action taken. 

This can include individuals, collectives, the animal kingdom and so forth. Stats, everybody likes stats don't under estimate that.

And all it took was the effort to remove those damnable distractions out of my way that always seem to be there. 

I am sure the dictionary is suitably mortified at your feelings about one of its definitions.

Because it means there is a kind of randomness in the world that can never be explained away as being merely "apparent".

Determinism only has one relevant meaning: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. This is falsified by Bell test experiments. These cannot be explained by information (associated with a "cause") that is in the past of the observations.

"Determinism only has one relevant meaning: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."

that sound right. but than it wont match your own definition of determinism as you relate it to TR

What your so- called “causes” are about is nothing more than disguised search for - Reasons.

Since beginnings everything has been affecting everything else. Forces are in play as Gravity that certainly plays a role affecting all of matter and it’s behavior. I know better and easily understand where the position originates - a belief system built upon a premise that the universe was not created/designed. A simplistic and shallow mind set only comprehends if not one must be the other - resulting in a world view of things happening by chance. After all, the same people claim the BB happened by chance. This should finalize their point as nothing more needs explaining. 
The concept, the idea of true randomness has far greater consequences than physics. It is NOT defined by if an event can be predicted or not. That is so much double speak. Similarly it’s not about determinism either. Bad habit to assume the nature of the universe is related to whether or not it was designed. 

Elroch and Opti are bound up in the works of duality. If not predetermined must be random. If the world was not created it must have happened by chance. Origins all started with a beginning. Something either had a cause or not.

Easy to get stuck in the mud, endlessly spinning the wheels. Especially so since neither of the dualities expressed are descriptive of the real world. 

MustangMate, are you saying that the universe was neither created by design nor happened by chance? If so, then what?