The deliberately scientific definition of true randomness I gave can apply in a hypothetical deterministic Universe (I am happy to acknowledge that this makes the term less than ideal, as one might wish determinism to exclude the possibility of "true randomness".
sweet.
The deliberately scientific definition of true randomness I gave can apply in a hypothetical deterministic Universe (I am happy to acknowledge that this makes the term less than ideal, as one might wish determinism to exclude the possibility of "true randomness".
It is worth emphasising here that the idea of starting with a label and then trying to pick the right concept to go with it (as was necessary in this forum) is very much the wrong way round. In science and maths, concepts are chosen because they are important and labels are then selected for them. My concept is a good one for science because it describes the most random something can be according to science.
The key to having randomness in a scientific sense in a hypothetical deterministic Universe is to have crucial information in inaccessible hidden variables.
For example, let's say there is a computable rule for what the next move to be played in any chess game is, based on some local hidden variables. Then the moves in games are not predictable even with all past information that is accessible, and they satisfy the scientific definition of true randomness (prediction is absolutely impossible with all available information).
I have to say at this point I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of hidden variables being "in the Universe" (as they are commonly in physics. Eg a wave function). What is it that makes them "there" if there is no effect of this? Of course the wave function is only part of a model and other models lack it, so it is fair to say it is not (necessarily) really there.