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

doubt, depression and danger ... 

Reading between the lines revels hidden variables is another way of asserting randomness exists.

That may be what you read, but the history of it is this.

Quantum mechanics as originally described had a fundamentally random nature. Quite early, the hypothesis arose that this randomness might be merely apparent, the result of a deterministic model of reality that involved local hidden variables that could not be observed. First it was shown that this hypothesis could not explain the predicted behaviour of quantum mechanics. Later it was verified empirically (by a series of increasingly strict experiments over several decades) that quantum mechanics does indeed have the specific behaviour for which this hypothesis is inadequate. 

Are all your posts pre-recorded cause they’re terribly predictable.

By example: I predict I can say in 10 words what would be 100 of yours. ⚖️

ok. i agree with most of it. the importance is that they seem to match. lets go back to the example of chess.

according to the definitions above, the results of a game of chess will be fixed (determined) before the game even start. do you agree with that?

👍😂

                       D

Stands for the law of demand and supply. Whatever service we are here to give, there is a demand for it. Ask yourself “How may I serve?” and “How can I help?” The answers are within you. When you find those answers, you will also see and know that there is a demand for your services.

“D” also stands for dharma. Each of us has a dharma, a purpose in life. When we are in dharma, we enjoy and love our work.

Yes. The idea would be that the state of the two players and their environment suffices to determine their actions throughout the game.

they say that (3) std deviations is accurate to about 369x's outta 370. or abt 99.73%. i find it interesting that the more x's u sample out the die ?...(tho asymptotic) the further the hard count diverges from theory...or exactly 2MMx's ea in 12MM samples in this case. this is probly the #1 reason i dont find much solace in math theory. its all about practice. keeps me empirically real.

physicists are creating our celestial aether witha humongous blackboard a wild-haired math calcs. its just theory. nature imitates art but dont trust it to imitate math cuz were missing s/t pretty important here - our senses (consciousness).

i think that if we dont take matterialism too seriously, we already on to a much better path. (matterialism being the belief that life and matter are the same)

physicists are crossing into aesthetics cuz theyre running outta sensual experience data. theyre starting to make stuff up (tho might turn out2be real but then might not be) using wonder like mysterious beauty azza attractant. and i guess thats ok as that opens the corpus callosum for those that are currently operating at 50% capacity. wont name names.

Something is going on and you don’t know what it is .... do you Mr. Physicist? (Jones)

Here’s the hard part to reconcile-

The micro and the macro are the same thing

Just in different form. 
Sound familiar? -a common theme perhaps found throughout nature. The two worlds are not so distinctly different after all.

QM Theory is less than 100 years old. These whipper snappers today think they know a thing or two about it. Perhaps so. But I also know 100 years from now, by its very nature QM Theory will be making far different conclusions about nature.

Yes. The macro world is made up entirely of micro components. The behaviour of the whole derives entirely from the behaviour of the components.

I'd like to throw in a notion I have been thinking about developing here which relates to the MWI which you have referred to as (if I recall - I think it was you) a sort of globally deterministic physics which includes the non-deterministic physics we observe in a random branch.

The notion is to consider toy Universes that have some of the key properties of the MWI.

First, and very simple, might be a Universe that consists of a coin continually being tossed. So the MWI analog is a bifurcating tree of sequences of coin tosses, twice as many at each step, with all sequences appearing.

A Universe in this toy multiverse consists of one infinite sequence of coin tosses. A question about physics would be "what is the next coin toss based on all previous ones?" and the correct answer is that it is random.

The exact physics depends on exactly how our Universe is selected from the multiverse. One natural version would be that every branch has probability 0.5. In this Universe the entire physics is that all the tosses have probabilities of a fair coin independent of all previous ones.

The physics experienced in such a Universe is of course not deterministic. Indeed it is maximally random.

This toy Multiverse is extremely simple. A more complex version might involve a more complex structure with something akin to relativistic causality. Of course it could also be made not entirely random. There is likely enlightenment to be found in exploring such toy models.

One realisation I had was that it seems entirely possible for the global picture to be a static structure with no uncertainty and for the passage of time to be entirely illusory. Intuitively you, right now are at a point in this structure which contains information about its relationship to stuff we consider the past. At another point in time "you" are a different point. There is a relationship between the information at the different locations, but no movement occurring. Also, very interestingly, each "you" at some time is associated with a single past (at least in one version) but with an exponentially increasing number of futures. Each of these futures is as valid a "you", but you only ever see one of them.

There is doubt about the "uniqueness" of the past, because of Feynman's observations about the sum of all possible paths of particles leading to the observed behaviour. So it is fair to say that what we observe happening is the result of everything possible that could have led to it having happened, which may even be symmetric to the way the future exponentially branches. The single past is like the combination of all possible pasts, so it is unique, but it is not a unique path/Universe.

This might also mean that it is misguided to think of a single past state leading to the present state, as it is really that a vast number of past states combine to do so.

I think you can see why toy models are desirable to get some more intuition and clarify some points.

elroch: "The game is determined by the past in a deterministic Universe. That is by definition."

ok. now that we agree on determinism, we can finally revisit your definition of TR.

can you explain how your definition of TR compatible with Determinism? (after all they are just two sides of the same coin)

lets use the same analogy of a chess game so everyone else can understand this conversation too. (and lets not get distracted with MW)

                      E

Stand for exulting in the success of others, especially your competitors and those who consider themselves your enemies. Your competitors and enemies will become your helpers when you exult in their success.

“E” also stands for the principle that expectancy determines outcome. So always expect the best and you’ll see that the outcome is spontaneously contained in the expectation.

I was careful to make my definition of true randomness scientific in character, because only scientific questions about the Universe can ever be resolved (that is essentially the definition of science). Note that this does includes the potential for observations of types that we have not even thought of yet.

It is based entirely on what can be gleaned from experiment. It refers to the information available from any point in space-time, which would exclude so-called hidden variables. It also cannot be affected by any distinctions between models of reality that are not distinguishable by experiments - so for example MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation are viewed as equivalent models (which is why they are considered interpretations of QM of equal scientific standing).

lets stay on the critical path..  if you dont understand my Q, ill rephrase, but is best if you simply use the analogy of a chess game to illustrate your concept of TR in a deterministic U. (without going to MW)