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

You just said Opti you had not read the 1st post till moments ago. Have you read the title ?

Im not calling anything T/R. It can’t be proven.

I only said it’s a philosophical question - TR and not a question of statistics or mathematical probabilities - R.

I fear you have completely missed the subject matter.

Randomness is an abstract concept like infinity that exists only in concept and has no physical basis. True randomness is in fact achieved only with maximum entropy, which perhaps only exists when time is at infinity

a prime ending in 9 is almost 65 percent more likely to be followed by a prime ending in 1 than another prime ending in 9.

This seems to violate a longstanding assumption held by mathematicians, that prime numbers should behave much like random numbers. Of course, prime numbers however are generated in a deterministic algorithm, albeit with a very strange unexplained computational bias.

To create a computation that generates randomness would imply a fixed sized procedure and therefore that procedure describes the order in that randomness.

Chaos and Entanglement, acting both in time and space leads to what we perceive as randomness. This randomness is the effect of emergent complexity and not some mathematical notion of intractability. There is no such thing as something intrinsically random

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/there-is-no-randomness-only-chaos-and-complexity-c92f6dccd7ab

Ok - so what does “true” randomness imply?

For myself I see randomness as an abstract concept - existing in the mind.

To ask if true randomness exists is asking if it exists outside our minds.

estimations apparently not ur strong suit. 🙃

i like squid soup

'To ask if true randomness exists is asking if it exists outside our minds.'

excluding the behavior of minds from the rest of the physical world is cool and one escape from D. but its also crossing the line to dualism. and the belief in dualism is incompatible with the belief in matterialsm/naturalism. so you cant really use it as a legit escape from D if you want to hold on to your belief in matterialsm.. (not saying that you do, just a way of speaking)

and yea.. guess im out of excuses now. lol ..will get on it

We have have our differing world views sillver1 although I suspect they are not as different as appearances present. That said, you clearly understand what people are writing and respond having “listened”. Your posts I take at face value and try likewise. This topic elicits ideas all over the spectrum. An open mind becomes more essential than the norm.

I do not see the “dualism” spoken of.

Probably because I’m a big advocate that dualism falsely represents reality. 
Seems I’m constantly pointing out proposed concepts are dualistic in nature and do not describe the physical world (which is often dualistic at 1st appearance)

You are correct - I do separate the mind from everything else. A better term is “consciousness “.

Recent experiments have shown thoughts can be measured and perhaps possess physical properties. I suspect this to be true. But at the same time I believe consciousness to be existential. 
Comments get made and labels attached as someone being a materialist or believes in D when in fact the author simply used terminology easily misunderstood.

Consciousness and everything else (the Cosmos?) are the only two things I do separate.

Perhaps they are one in the same 💡

Now that’s some heavy stuff !

They are. It's just that you are one particular part of the Cosmos.

The thesis in that article is incapable of explaining the randomness in the real world without the world being an ugly fake, where every choice in every experiment is predetermined in an entirely implausible way so as to make it appear that quantum mechanics is true.

A fake ? Huh ??? Where is that suggested? You reject the ideas  because they challenge your strict form of bayesian logic, but nowhere does it make inference the world is a fake. 
Your belief in infinite “other worlds” implies as such - does it not? Which world is real?

2ndly- claiming the author says every choice is predetermined is a great distortion- one intentionally meant I fear to discredit. The author is    highly respected by peers. You should at a minimum respect the ideas instead of the sloppy assessment because of disagreement.

That what we perceive as randomness is actually chaos and entanglement at work - is the observation made. 
Labels as D and R are the wrong definitions- simplistic ideas (dualistic) - shortcuts for easy made conclusions.

D and R are abstract concepts- they do not exist as physical properties - impossible to prove the existence of. 
Where as chaos and entanglement perhaps exists as real physical properties.

Labeling this or that as “deterministic” - we all know the implication made - that of ID as being the only other possible explanation if randomness does not exists. It’s a silly rebuttal- as if abstraction can prove otherwise. A rejection of ID is not evidence for randomness. Determinism can take on other forms/definitions besides that of an image of a creator being the source.

The hypothesis is an attempt to describe scientifically what is is actually occurring- something R or D as abstract ideas are incapable  of ever doing.

Time is a puzzling concept in physics: Two key physics theories clash on how they define it. In quantum mechanics, which describes tiny atoms and particles, “time is just there. It’s fixed. It’s a background,” says physicist Flaminia Giacomini of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada. But in the general theory of relativity, which describes gravity, time shifts in bizarre ways. A clock on the surface of the Earth ticks more slowly than one aboard an orbiting satellite, for example.

In attempts to combine these two theories into one theory of quantum gravity, “the problem of time is actually quite important,” says Giacomini, who was not involved with the research. Studying different mechanisms for time, including fundamental clocks, could help physicists formulate that new theory.
copied

Like a metronome that sets the tempo for a musician, a fundamental cosmic clock may be keeping time throughout the universe. But if such a clock exists, it ticks extremely fast.

In physics, time is typically thought of as a fourth dimension. But some physicists have speculated that time may be the result of a physical process, like the ticking of a built-in clock.

If the universe does have a fundamental clock, it must tick faster than a billion trillion trillion times per second, according to a theoretical study published June 19 in Physical Review Letters.

In particle physics, tiny fundamental particles can attain properties by interactions with other particles or fields. Particles acquire mass, for example, by interacting with the Higgs field, a sort of molasses that pervades all of space (SN: 7/4/12). Perhaps particles could experience time by interacting with a similar type of field, says physicist Martin Bojowald of Penn State. That field could oscillate, with each cycle serving as a regular tick. “It’s really just like what we do with our clocks,” says Bojowald, a coauthor of the study.

ScienceNews 7/13/20

More even distributions are more common. For a reasonable number of rolls, sufficiently uneven distributions are very uncommon.

For example, the chance that you roll zero 6s from rolling N dice is (5/6)**N. When N is reasonably big, this gets very small. For example, it's about 1 in 80 million for 100 rolls.

The same is true for any bias (eg "less than 10% 6s" becomes very uncommon eventually).

The idea that the universe has an internal clock ticking very fast suggests to me time exists as singular, independent moments and is contrary to the idea Time is seamless- flowing as a river with zero separation. (it just Is)

The concept if true has the capability to explain much of how matter behaves.