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

helicopter be like brrr

wudduya get when u cross a helicopter with a rhinoceros ?

(iknow old & dum)

 What sillier wrote makes perfect sense to me. Satisfying the definitions does not change how the  world is.

Perfectly said. Takes away the restrictions imposed by some.

you sound as innocent as elroch

AND he gets kinder-confuzed btwn earth-based discoveries and cosmological 'what-ifs'.

You can't be positive and your sarcasm is lame. If you were cleverer than you are, I think you'd be pleasanter than you can manage at the moment. I really don't want to talk to you.

Appears you must have a list, actually two. One for things that are random and things that are not. I can’t imagine once a cause has been found for one thing and it’s placed on the predictable side it ever being moved. But somethings once thought to be random are now be predictable so they get moved over. Is there a 3rd list- stuff you’re uncertain about?
Must be quite the daunting work, all the testing and such. And ensuring the devices are all up to date, giving the most accurate results.

Sometimes I might forget if something is random or not. A quick reference guide for us laymen is in order.

I think perhaps too much needless worry. I could better plan my day if I knew in advance which things were random. I could just go with the flow, randomly bounce about. 
Life becomes simple when described in advance. We know what to expect. Lo and behold it unfolds as predicted, verification all is as if should be. 

You're talking about causes again. You must link cause with predictability but causes can't always be computed accurately.

If something is predictable, there will be a cause for that. But whenever I give an example, you just lose focus and refuse to consider it. An engine could be cutting out and there are logical tests but only when one knows how they work and under what conditions it cuts out. But what's the point? I think you live on another planet. Everything you write seems slightly crazy.

All in all, you identify with people who think there's something else to life ..... maybe a causal factor that simpletons don't take into account, and life is far more complex than those simpletons think. Trouble is, whenever you imagine you disagree with someone because they're a bit too certain of themselves for your liking, you think they're a simpleton.

I don't think you're stupid at all but there's something unhealthy happening. Big fish in tiny pond syndrome? Heaven knows.

On reflection for a couple of minutes, you're complaining that life is too complex and you don't like it. I'm fairly sure of that now. This has got to be a Freudian thing .... the idea of randomness scares you and so you deny it. I think this fits in with your last few posts. I never paid you much attention before you became insulting. I apologise for that but it was mainly because I thought you were making fairly random comments. You seemed to be challenging everything anyone wrote and of course, that's a legitimate way to engage with a subject. But it went on too long and for me, the tone of the conversation changed after the little squabble we all had with Elroch. I now suspect he had taken you all too seriously whilst I didn't take you seriously at all.

professor Colva Roney-Dougal of the University of St. Andrews says, “I can never prove that a sequence is random, I can only prove that it looks random and smells random.”

How funny can Opti get? Now my problems are all a Freudian thing ! How much is the couch 🥴

suggest not adding psychology to your list of accomplishments 

I was going to make a remark about the feud between the rivals of Newton and Hooke, but then, I caught sight of this, and was really very hooked.

"What sillier wrote".. lol

Absent minded minds think alike. Don't how one would mistake a v for an i since the letters just physically distanced on the keyboard, I think this calls for the radical epiphany that MustangMate is the subject of ^ Comma splice

The Infinite Monkey Theorem

Addendum: Truth be told, my layout is a work of art... truly. Wait...

https://www.w3.org/People/maxf/XSLideMaker/hamlet.pdf

Hamlet'er has enlightened me.

"I think this calls for the radical epiphany that MustangMate is the subject of"

lol. what took you so long

it may existed forever as far as we know. if you subscribe to the big bang like most people do, you end up with the Q. where this fire ball came from. and the answer is either "elsewhere" or that it always existed in this form or another. this old thing about the universe creating itself is just scifi

Random. probable, chance, cause, determined, predictable 

These terms are Epistemic

They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight. I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature. It’s not the simple matter that stuff “must be” one way or another as seen through a cloudy lens. Stuff originates independently while the Cosmos remains ordered. New stuff happens, is affected by everything else. It is not a random process, this thing we call reality. How can it be ? Everything has an affect. Want to know the process by which the Cosmos behaves? Understand Life’s process. Quite the same. 

guess wut ?...when u look at the field of so-called theoretical physics, do u actually believe anyone would even care about nature if they didnt find beauty in it ? i mean, get real ! thats the main reason why ppl study stuff that no one has ever seen. does that seem as soul-seeking to u as it does to me ?

didju know its not really STEP (physics) if its not testable ?...stuff like multiverses, mosta QM, 11-D's ? but lets see. if i torque & caress Math enuf ?...i get popular sci-fi ! yee ! fun !...i just unlocked alla nature's secrets w/ some scratch-n-chalkboard dabble ! who cares about the SM, right ? its elegance & beauty & romance we seek ! so on & on & on we stretch...lol !

ok. so heres the ice hard fact that u needta deal w/. what u really seek is to express ur version of love. sorry if this shocks ur conscious. but ur not fooling ur subconscious any. it's known all along (darn ).

oh ! and just so u dont get any myopic ideas ?...there's lotsa diff versions of 'luvfest' study happening. trust me. every typa field u can thinka hazzit going on. culinary arts, animal husbandry, chess...

Random digression #0U812

(Everything in quotation marks.)  

What's the best way to avoid the "maybe's" and the "no's?" To be able to sense when to disqualify a prospect. See, the best salespeople in the world usually don't have the best sales skills--they have the best qualifying skills, quickly moving on from non-responsive prospects and spending the bulk of their time with only highly qualified prospects. They are really "great managers of time."

What allows these "superstars" to be so successful is they have rigidly defined the "ideal prospect" and as soon as they identify a trait that is outside of that definition they politely disengage and move onto the next prospect.

"What's the best way to avoid the "maybe's" and the "no's?"

the best way is too read the situation correctly. heres a quote i like.. think you will too.

"Even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
This finding has enormous implications for negotiation professionals. People who believe they can build a case for their side using logic alone are doomed to be poor negotiators"