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

long time no see opti.. yes TR= true randomness.  and no, this is not about entertaining definitions silliness. like.. “are water wet” or “chess is a sport”. i.e. confusing TR with unpredictability.

iow, either TR is a true phenomenon or its pseudo. unfortunately no one can answer that.. or maybe we are fortunate that we can’t?

what do you mean? general R, or pseudo R if you prefer only represents a lack of information. and it’s all around us. for example, what you wear right now is random for me but if i saw you it wouldn’t be. or throwing a dice.. same thing

Not good example because it is not true.  Computer is following a program

Randomness is incompleteness of knowledge. The word "True" adds nothing more to it beyond the possibility of emphasising that the incompleteness of knowledge is true for ALL agents.

Even in that case it is always going to be that a future agent will have the knowledge that is missing.

Suppose for example you have a quantum mechanical system generating random bits that are not predictable as a consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

These are random to any observer. Now suppose an observer records those bits and then reads them out to another observer who has access to no information about the original experiment. Those bits are just as random to him but not to the reader who has seen them all before reading them.

To any observer of a random event, its randomness vanishes after the fact. Eg I generate a random bit using a quantum mechanical source. Before generating is is random in the strongest sense - there is not even the possibility of someone/something being able to predict it. After it has occurred it is a fixed past event with no randomness. However, if the event has occurred and been recorded it remains exactly as random to someone who has no access of any kind - direct or indirect - to that information.

This can be random in the strongest sense. Modern processors contain hardware entropy sources based on quantum mechanical randomness. These can be used to seed a random number generator, leading to an output that is truly random.

But how dose it work?

if the conditions can be replicated to chose certain, but then such manipulation would negate the test.  Would have to rely on the program to consistently make the same choice.  Once that is discovered is it still random?        Interesting

Reminds me of plinko toy.  (I believe is correct name, the disk falling between random pegs).  It lands in a random place at the end.  Not the same as computer hardware but an example of generating seemingly random result.   In order to be replicated it would have ti be implemented perfectly

Only my words are different. My definition remains derived from definitive sources on the subject, including the course on randomness (in all its guises) that I once took (given by an Italian quantum physicist).

Since it is not accessible to everyone, here it is.

the word “True” in TR makes a whole world of difference. what it means is the type of randomness that prevent the possibility of determinism. this was already explained to you by several people including the OP. 

iow, it makes your comment completely unrelated to this topic. is really that simple.

we dont say fated for greatness. we say destined for greatness. theres a diff. tho alotta ppl treat fate & destiny as the same thing. they arent. fates the 1st line in that one serenity prayer. destinys the 2nd one. and ste...neesha doesnt convince me when tryn2make a case for no freewill. WAY TOO subjective (for obvious reasons) & couldnt seem to separate.

tho makes a wonderful case for how his <3 controlled his mind...yee !

I would have given that, but it is not available anymore.

Determinism is about the way information changes over time. Put simply, absolute determinism means information does _not_ change over time. Rather all information at a later time is a forced implication of information at an earlier time. 

For example, the combination of the initial state of a cellular automaton and the deterministic rules of evolution is a set of information that suffices to infer the entire future of that cellular automaton. There is no new information being added here - one initial state + rules entails a specific future evolution.

This means if determinism applies, an agent that has access to the relevant information in the past can predict a future event: i.e. it is not random to them.

It is possible to try to circumvent this relationship between determinism and randomness by postulating a type of information which determines future events but which is inaccessible to any agent. This is deceptive because such information does not in any meaningful sense exist at the earlier time. A time is a slice of space-time, describing a part of the Universe with which entities can interact. Something that can interact with nothing is not there in any meaningful sense.

(Note that I slightly loosely discuss "a time" above, fully aware that relativity means there is no unique simultaneity. The above description can be replaced by one refering to light cones and this would be well worth doing, but I feel the above will be clear to more people here).

i see destiny as s/t ur suppose to go out & do or become. master past-present-future stuff (making a case for free will). cant u be s/o who suppose to do s/t (destined to...) but chooses not to ? i think so.

to me fate is alot clearer. i cant really change it. iows a slave p-p-f thingy. its pretty much determined upon me. but btw this doesnt make fate bad.

btw alotta ppl relate destiny w/ s/t positive. like fate may not be bad, destiny may not be good. a/w if fate & destiny are the same then why have two words ?...maybe to appease both sides of the argument ? 

we’ve been there before. and the only determinism related to TR is causal determinism, we also know what causal D means. so there’s no need to redefine it.

the bottom line is that according to both physics and philosophy D is a valid proposition just as much as indeterminism. and it all comes down to the interpretation. you know that. i think. 

you see, if you structured your argument to convince others why your interpretation is preferred over others or whatever, it would be perfectly fine and a common thing on countless forums. but if you keep making claims such as “QM falsified D” don’t be surprised if it puts you under suspicious light.

btw, doesnt the very thought of FW-D (or a/t for that matter !) affect entropy ? sure seems like it would. re: sweating during a test ?  

and ste. i feel that hardcore determinists (no free will) gives themselves a excuse to act a/w they want to (and so why it was made up). one a those master morality thingys.

i don’t know about “the very thought”. but FW would definitely shatter D. w/o the need for TR.

in the past the disbelief in FW was associated with cheating personalities and “nonmorality thingys”. later studies found the initial studies to be not well understood at the least. all in all i think that the belief in FW is well justified no matter what the Patrick’s of our U tells us.

lol. several years ago elroch argued with me of the existence of FW. you do the math..