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

Indicating they are all one, perhaps, since 9 (nine!) classes can only be the product of a fevered imagination.

Looking at it logically and practically, since these are ALL hypotheses with no possible chance of verification, it is natural there will be differences between them since each person will want to claim a square yard of pseudo-scientific turf. This doesn't mean they are different and indeed, it tends to mean they are the same.

Of course, the idea that there may be vast expanses of universe beyond the optical horizon isn't linked to these concepts. That's just a fact.

Really cool thing

Oh really?  A fact now is it?

Statements as these, and your propensity to define topics in a singular manner explains why you can not be taken straight up. “It’s a fact that the universe exists in vast expanses beyond the optical horizon” is pure speculation. That you present this as fact (most all would only speculate) reveals much. Discussion with you quickly reaches walls, the walls you build and insist all discussion to live by. It’s been explained. Now try reading it again.

You continually broach subjects that honestly I have not a clue as to their relevancy regarding true randomness. What you say often has validity, but what does stuff beyond the event horizon, if it exists or not, have to do with the topic?

well there 123 pages of messages here, dont expect me to read them all. but heisenberg uncertainty principle has something to do with randomness. everything can be known before they happened if you could know atomic movements of everthing in the universe so this would remove randomness. but this principle says electrons can be anywhere at anytime and there are uncertain things.

Yes, it's a fact that there is an optical horizon and it is logically necessary that the universe doesn't just stop at that point. Therefore the universe extends beyond it.

“Logically necessary” does not make for fact.

That you so insist greatly diminishes credibility.

Yet another example of the numerous assumptions made in all your statements that try to explain reality for us.

I'm sorry but honestly, you talk a lot of nonsense which you seem to think is intelligent and wonderful and sceptical and so on. But in reality you are trying to challenge everything and that shows that you don't have much knowledge and that you ought to be trying to learn. You could gain a great deal in trying to understand someone like Elroch even though he isn't always completely clear. There's no doubt about his knowledge. OK so I'm highly intelligent and good looking and so forth but I haven't been taught this stuff in a formal way and there are big gaps in my knowledge. But the stuff I'm talking about here is simple, beginners' stuff.

Reposted - clear explanation that the uncertainty principle is Not  concerned about things being random and says absolutely nothing on the topic. 
The uncertainty that Heisenberg is explaining is not uncertainty over whether or not events happen randomly. We can measure both speed and location of things with extreme accuracy. What he tells us is the mere act of measurement, that of measuring the speed affects its location and vice versa. The uncertainty lies in we can never know precisely in time the exact speed and location, only one or the other.

It's like you're saying that gravity is just an assumption and there's no proof.

Yes, I am knowledgeable and intelligent enough to rightly question your quotation which you reposted. I don't like to say this because it sounds bad but you shouldn't be talking here. You don't have the knowledge or understanding of the subject and a lot of the time you sound merely destructive. If you don't mind, I think we better start ignoring each other. It would be better.

The uncertainty principle says that there is always randomness in properties of a quantum object (also true for larger objects, but the uncertainty becomes insignificant). Even the name indicates this: uncertainty is randomness. (Tying this back to the standard definition, uncertainty in a quantity at a specific time means you cannot make a precise prediction of that quantity at that time (that time could be now).

You absolutely cannot both accurately know the position and velocity of an quantum object. One way to elaborate this is that every state that has a precise velocity is a combination of states with a wide variety of positions and every state that has a precise position is a combination of states with a wide variety of velocities.

When I commented on it, I wasn't agreeing that the universe is not inherently stochastic. My comment was meant to indicate it that his understatement points to the probability that he is biassed towards determinism, somewhat, and that he tends to believe there is no randomness. I was agreeing with what he described. I was not agreeing with the writer's interpretation of it. Anyway, please pay attention to Uncle Elroch.

The repost was for gd who clearly makes assumption that because the term “uncertainty” is being used it must have something to do with randomness- as he so stated.

I think we have all gone wrong by expressing things in ways that make it difficult for others to accept them. You have got better at this, @Optimissed.

Communication is not just about saying stuff that is right: it is about saying it in a way that is received, understood and accepted by others. I don't claim particular skill at this!

With all due respect, that would be because it does.

Search google for "randomness" and the second definition is "unpredictability".

Do the same for "uncertainty" and one of the synonyms is "unpredictability".

Spot the common theme.

Yes. It’s all there. Ain’t it grand how modern theorists can twist and turn old ideas  to match and fix new ones. Heisenberg with his original hypothesis was not addressing randomness and it’s possibility. It is today’s theorists interpreting the principle, suggesting the idea proves things happen in a random manner.

Heisenberg developed his hypothesis never mentioning the terms associated with randomness. It is only modern day that it’s made claim - “he’s really talking about randomness” gets made.

Modern thought suggests randomness is related to the ability of prediction.

All good. Stuff qualifies as random after meeting the definition.

What is truly amazing is that some here truly believe it as fact. Leading physicists all say it “can’t be proven”,  only that it sure looks and smells like it.