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

My best articulation. 
Ain’t Maths grand ?  Something that can predict it’s own unpredictability is but a minds toy. 

The gist of I t wolfbird is that other viewpoints exist. Not that mine specifically is anything special. Others make statement theirs is the only light, that things must be either/or. 
Whether or not is really more a function of time. 
Want to discuss observation of the real world? Do things happen randomly? Great discussion. Soon as you tell me this is random/ this is not - based on definitions of predictability it’s time for the evening martini. 
Im not being evasive Wolfbird. One explanation, which has many interpretations is that the universe has always existed - Time immortal. Make such suggestion and the blood hounds come out barking. Anyway, beware of those on soap boxes. Suggest anything other than the status quo and be instantly labeled, called unintelligent. We observe such stuff everywhere. It’s not random in the least !

Ain’t Maths grand ?  Something that can predict it’s own unpredictability is but a minds toy. 

MM, one a my very deepest feelings in the whole wide world is that wut we think weve found in our U is gonna end up being a illusion. and wut our so-called smartest math rascals have tried to do is take the unsuspecting s/w. and that place is filled w/ romantic fantasy.

but i gettit ! theyre just trying to express themselves. and im cool w/ that. theyre just trying to show everyone who they really are inside. way dn deep (arent we all ?) and so they go 4ward and manipulate math to bring out that potential orb for ppl. iows, theyre tryn2show u that math understands cosmology. bullsh*t ! wut they end up doing is showing u that their so-called nature is mirroring their math ! and thats the illusion. its kinda hilarious donchu feel ?   :: ))

and so ill probly feel this way 4da the rest a my life. and really ? idt i want a/t more til the day i die. i believe in innatism and how it can phophesize wuts in front a us. is this both a gift and a curse ? not sure. but, regarding this. its all much more D than FW 4me.

Where would it leave us if one day it’s proven the BB Theory to be true in regards to the topic here? (true randomness)

Nowhere. We’d be no closer to understanding if true randomness exists as before. You see it’s quite clear some have already made conclusion on the existence of TR without any 1st hand knowledge- just some abstract ideas. A critical error in thinking. Questions then get asked demanding answers grounded in the assumptions. Foolish stuff. 

@Lola - you’d think others would get this stuff. 

The illusion part ? It’s not true. Illusions are easy, simplistic by nature. The Big U is not easy by nature and I’d think impossible to duplicate. An illusion suggests a 2nd reality does it not ?

Nobody ever did anything useful with maths. Philosophy on the other hand is what got men to the moon and allowed them to make the chips in your mobile phone.

[irony alert]

Like that tune birdie.. Some 'individuals' still don't understand that when 'others' seem to be offline, there actually in stealth mode doing background. Yet they sit and wait, watching for that spark of acceptance that is a ruse..

https://youtu.be/yJbmXvBJhCs

Taking you seriously for a split second, you should know you're all mouth. If you think there was a faulty premise then state what it is and why it's wrong in your opinion. Because anybody can do what you're doing. It's called trolling. You need to say why things are wrong, in your opinion. The world is full of people who say that they said that they explained why a post was wrong long before it was ever made and it's (my) job to find out where because they've said it once and they won't do so again. They're lying and they're trolls. Come on, show us what was wrong and why it was wrong and less of the empty noise and general stupidity. You could actually get people taking you seriously, you know, if you don't do that! Think of the chaos and randomness that would ensue!

Opti -   I have expressed alternative viewpoints for ages. Don’t start in now presenting otherwise.

True randomness does not exist for a simple reason. Everything is affected by everything else. Separate causes do not exist. Observation tell us the universe is ordered. You disagree but stop with these lies about me just trolling. You refuses to discuss any view other than your own,  have gone  off on your insulting and childish tantrums. 
You and Elroch have the same core beliefs. I know your world view. Our world views are established well before most academic pursuit. Claim gets made 1st comes the science followed by creating  a world view. I know better.  You have expressed it in many terms but it’s all the same. Mine is different. There is no need or point  to your constantly trying to engage. I know the result. Highly predictable so I simply choose not to respond to faulty premises. I hold no illusions that you’ll ever truly understand the topic. And know what ? I make no claim to fully grasp what true randomness is. Unlike yourself who has defined and explained the entire question dismissive of others. 
Independent Origination is a concept that better explains the nature of things. I have expressed the idea in many occasion. Most likely you are in the dark as never a single response except for - he’s trolling. Typical for those when confronted with ideas that are challenging. 

All in all, we all have bad days from time to time and the test of being an adult is if we don't obsess about it and we can delete it from our agenda and start again. How about seeing if you can manage that?

Perhaps difficult to understand - 

Finding and labeling a cause for an event does not reveal anything about the question of whether or not true randomness exists. 
It addresses only the surface - that of randomness occurring in the physical world as matter is measured/quantified.

 Randomness and true randomness quite different, at least from my view. True randomness is philosophical and asks far deeper questions- 

such as the events themselves. You may know the cause or origin. But so ? I ask because any origin/cause is responsible for events being either! We can’t assume that by knowing a cause for events the events become deterministic in nature.

Why is everything difficult to understand? I really think that if you succeed in placing words in the right order, you'll manage to express what you want to express and, if someone reads it with the intention of understanding it, they'll manage eventually.

I can remember reading David Hume and it took me over an hour to read a page .... I had to keep re-reading sentences and clauses and sometimes got stuck on words, and I started paragraphs half a dozen times. Then almost all of a sudden, I was reading him fluently. It was like I was in his mind. It was a transformation.

Yet understanding is one thing and agreeing is another. I didn't altogether agree with Hume and I don't agree with you, even though I believe I understand what's motivating your objections. One thing is that you're repeating something about causes.

I wasn't aware that I'd tied causality into randomness. I certainly never intended to do it and I don't really think I did do it. So where did that come from? Are you mixing me up with someone? Previously you have agreed with me when I tried to show that randomness and true randomness are the same thing. That is because actually they're both abstract ideas and they define similarly. Since you don't accept that any definition of randomness exists, clearly you won't accept that. Now you say they're different.

You seem interested in philosophy. Have you studied it? There's no need to study it but when I did, I found that it wasn't altogether straightforward in that it meant that I had to make a very substantial effort to learn to understand what people mean, even though they might not express themselves perfectly.

When I express myself and I state an opinion, which is in the form of a proposition or belief I hold about the nature of things, I state what it is and then go on to explain why. The "why" is in the form of further propositions which I hold to be true, or sometimes I express conflicting propositions to try to arrive at a synthesis.

It really shouldn't be necessary for me to constantly preface every proposition or premise with the argument that I believe it to be true, or to prove every premise I use. Very often, the truth or otherwise of a premise comes out in the ensuing argument. I don't want to write ten thousand word essays and I do expect you to make some kind of effort to understand why I write what I write. If you won't do that and yet you criticise me because you think you disagree, then I'm eventually going to react negatively.  OK? Stay safe.

opti: "Previously you have agreed with me when I tried to show that randomness and true randomness are the same thing. That is because actually they're both abstract ideas and they define similarly."

it was me that agreed with you. but that was only for the purpose of definition. its kinda hard to explain.. just to try.. if TR does not exist.. you can still get apparent randomness, but it wont change a thing about the nature of our world, if this make sense. 

MustangMate agreed too. I stated it more than once.

The problem is that people have their ideas they express in words and then they expect their ideas to be different from other people's ideas, and whereas that may be likely in some circumstances, there are people who have thought of pretty much every possible idea, and so specific "favourite ideas" that individuals like aren't going to be anything like unique. In reality, thousands of people will have thought about them and some will like them better than others.

The problem I had with MustangMate is that he only considered his ideas but he didn't express them, so it was impossible to know what he thought, if he thought anything. And then all of a sudden you find yourself being attacked and as far as you were concerned, he'd just agreed to what he was attacking, and it didn't come across that he was just criticising ideas. When a person makes it clear he is attacking the person who is kind or honest enough to share his ideas, it just looks stupid.

"The problem I had with MustangMate is that he only considered his ideas but he didn't express them, so it was impossible to know what he thought, if he thought anything. And then all of a sudden you find yourself being attacked and as far as you were concerned, he'd just agreed to what he was attacking, and it didn't come across that he was just criticising ideas. When a person makes it clear he is attacking the person who is kind or honest enough to share his ideas, it just looks stupid."

you sound as innocent as elroch.. lol

I tried to explain what T.R. is though. It's an abstract idea. I defined it quite carefully. It refers to the thing we're discussing here.

But it's impossible to escape from what randomness really is .... that is from its definition. Did you read what I wrote about the days of the week being random? That was supposed to illustrate it, but I suppose if someone has no clear picture of what randomness is, then it would be meaningless. I thought what I wrote was quite good but it may have been too difficult.

Innocent? What does that mean?

You see, I'm a Facebook creature. And in real life no-one would try to bully me. I mean, it isn't going to happen. It can happen on Facebook and I can block, ignore, be nice, make a joke or swat them down. Here on c.c, it's different. Different type of ppl really. Living much more in their own heads perhaps. You don't get the out and out nutcases though, like you do on other social media. I think chess is a good outlet. But a lot of chess players are going to have some kind of social problems .... it's just a fact. It's different here and I've no desire to be unpleasant to others. I want to help people if I can.

If that's innocence then I'll stick with it.

I thought what I wrote was quite good but it may have been too difficult. OptI

So it will be the old too difficult to understand ploy ! You confuse in agreement with and understanding. Yep, the day of the week thingy was so complicated it just flew over my head alright.