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

if you refer to the randomness in the Copenhagen body of interpretations. i wouldn't call it default. its more of a belief, or speculation, or something in this neighborhood. 

determinism should be our default because it follows causality. 

yes. determinism mean causality. and causality is our default understanding of pretty much everything.

Relativistic causality is equivalent to saying that information only propagates into the future light cone. It's practical consequences make sense - it is impossible for example to observe the result of a football match then communicate that result to someone in the past so that they can place a winning bet on it.

Statistically, the difference between future and past is not so clear - eg there could be a range of possible past states, then when you observe something you can infer that only one of those states is true. This looks quite similar to information leading to a choice. However, there is no way to set this up so that the set of past states is you placing a bet on different results for the football match and then this collapsing to just the right bet!

The definition of determinism in a relativistic context (i.e. the real world) is tricky enough to justify papers discussing how to do this:

Relativistic spacetimes and definitions of determinism

There are papers that represent pretty much every POV about this topic. and i have no problem with your personal belief in naturalism and randomness. we all have our beliefs.

The real issue here is that you falsely present your belief as being objective science. it is not!

personally i think that if you came clean and admit your errors instead of keep marching with your obfuscations, you'll come across as more reliable. especially in this topic because you put yourself in odds with the scientific method. 

Randomness didn't exist until 2007...When i was born LOL

maybe you just don't have it in you.

we have several interpretation of QM. some are deterministic, and some are not. they are all equal according to the scientific method. beating the same horse of hidden variables is just silly.

maybe i shouldn't say silly, but you're defiantly in odds with the scientific method.

I am fully aware the Everett interpretation (which is one of my preferred ones) is often stated to be deterministic, but this is only from a global "God's eye" view.

From the point of view of the scientific method, it is not. The reason this is not a contradiction is that the thing missing from the global view is the selection of which is the sole branch we see. This selection affects what happens from our point of view. This selection is random from our point of view. Knowing (or at least believing) that there might be an infinite number of copies of us seeing different things does not help us to make predictions in the sole branch we see.

What would? Is this another example of your ego making your opinion seem unduly relevant compared to that of physicists in general?

yes. that sounds more or a less like a fair description of determinism.

I think that when they teach this topic in schools they use the pilot wave interpretation to solidify how it relates to the scientific method. probably because it resemble determinism in a more classical way. 

as for Everett.. its another excellent example of a deterministic system. remember that agents ability to make predictions is not a condition for determinism, and does not falsify it in any way.

anyways.. lets not sidestep this, and stay on the question in hand. either one of those deterministic interpretations is sufficient. 

There is an elegant simplicity in the Everett interpretation. Less mathematical people may think that because there are so many worlds this makes it complex in some sense, but that is a mistake. It is simple in the sense that many key mathematical objects - eg the category of finite sets - are simple: their definitions are very lean.

The fact that Feynman's sum of all possible paths interpretation (the inspiration for the Everett interpretation, focusing on just one particle in its simplest form) works is a clue that there is a meaningful basis for this notion: what we see is exactly as if all possible things happen and are then combined in the natural way. Note how successful this interpretation has been at achieving the most precisely tested prediction in physics.

The only complication of this notion of superimposition of universes is that the combination only gets us to an amplitude and real events occur according to the square modulus of that amplitude.

elroch.. im not sure if you are dodging or need more time to reorganize your understanding of determinism. 

Determinism means that future events are determined by past information (go read a dictionary if that is not familiar).

This is not true for events that occur in our Universe.

The fact that parallel Universes might (or might not) exist in which everything happens is irrelevant to this scientific fact.

You would be as misguided to argue that smoking is not harmful because there might be a person in a parallel Universe who does not die for everyone that does in ours.

It's events that happen that matters to science.

gonna hafta abandon the arrow of time

Obfuscation is not the answer. your position is in odds with the scientific method and you just don't seem to have it in you to admit that. this psychological behavior is well known, but i have no interest in going there.