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

It start to bother me that I dont hear any good argument for why true randomness may exist.

Even in the event that true random does not exit in the present, at least maybe the first moment of the big bang was truly random?

Anyways, finally looked up Elon musk and his idea about simulation.  it has nothing to do with multi verse. he basically reason it with a much simplistic idea from video games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8

about funny monkeys and facial expressions... it reminds me of a cool quiz
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/quizzes/ei_quiz

and yea, if i miss the opportunity... Early happy new year and may all your self wishes be fulfilled!

It start to bother me that I dont hear any good argument for why true randomness may exist.

stop. close ur eyes. take (3) deep breathes (4's okay too). now....recuse ur senses. wut exactly do u feel ?

ask urself. where are we going on this slingshot stone tonite ?....will it be the same as last nite ?....and are we gonna go back there tomorrow nite ?

and btw, if u coulda gone somewhere else last nite, where would thatta been ?....just curious.

aimless question. when u do go somewhere later tonite (dream, walk, dvd ?) will it be a place to hide or will abuncha she's & he's already be there ?

see ?....we barely recall where we were yesterday and tomorrow will be today when we get there. so knowing that tomorrow has never really existed should be enuf to convince ur memories (yesterdays), hopes (so-called 'tomorrows'), and creativities (todays). and that ur white cloud of consciousness is up there making random snowflakes that only u can sense. just because.

"guesses welcome. guesses jaundiced"

it said that eating too many carrots will turn your skin orange. for real! lol

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-eating-too-many-carrots-turn-your-skin-orange/

"Even in the event that true random does not exit in the present, at least maybe the first moment of the big bang was truly random?"

i think that this one go back to the riddle of how, where, and when the laws of physics came into play.

interesting. when does the present begin ? practically speaking now. did it begin 3 seconds ago ? 3 minutes ago ? an infinitesimal time frame ago ?

and if we can't agree on some time element ?....then can we say the present that we are in right here right now is a timeless state ? and that the only way to see our existence as a function of time is the time it takes for us to slowly decompose ?

trust me here. im headed somewhere w/ the definition of random. just better not say right now.

The Big Bang is completely illogical since the criteria for the hypothesis were misrepresented and are incorrect in the face of a universe whose expansion is accelerating. So you don't have a one-off even as the "explanatory factor" (anyway it isn't) when a steady state process is also needed (for the acceleration). Therefore the Creation of the Universe is steady state and the Big Bang is bad logic.

If the Big Bang happened then, of course, it happened once. Therefore it was not random but it was bound to happen since before the Big Bang nothing exists and therefore time doesn't exist.

There are good reasons to think that randomness is real. I could concoct one, based on the idea of absurdity.

The cosmic microwave background radiation is extremely uniform as has been indicated by precise satellite measurements. Its discovery originated from the testing of a large antenna for satellite communications from Bell Laboratory. One is probably conscious of the fact that it has relation to the primordial beginnings of the universe, and that if we could discern wavelengths longer than red, we would be able to get a feel for it.

Nonetheless, the uniformity is of the greatest importance. If we employ a balloon - its two dimensional surface - to model the acceleration of the universe with jack-in-a-boxes (it could well be any arbitrary object) glued to the surface spaced out with parity, then our situation's complications will be mitigated. Were this balloon to expand, the jack-in-a-boxes would be driven away from each other. The jack-a-boxes are essentially analogous to galaxies. There is no asymmetry among the boxes; each view that the entity inside the box will be identical to any other. The outward expansion arises as per the stretching of space, so there is nothing special about any jack-in-a-box (galaxy), yet where the Big Bang initiated is, in a sense, a special point.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Surreal Spacetime Subtracted From Time

Time hath been a tasty parameter

In our lionised chess games

But occasionally

We must divert away

For there is excessive folly

We must go about in one of the conic sections

A circle it is

To define time 

Whose existence depends on the absence of symmetry

Symmetry, in its own right, is summarised by many

As being an integral part of encapsulating science

Uniformity of universe is evidence of change

It's at the crossroads of symmetry

What glee

Fortunately, our universe isn't completely unchanging

So we all can't be impinging

It will retaliate via the inconceivably strong force

And gorce shows that we will be directed towards

The steady state model

Consequently

The density

Of me 

Is very high

All the above discussion (post#374) mitigates against the Big Bang. However, after engaging many physicists in conversation, I have discovered that the Big Bang Theory is actually nonexistent because there is no conformity as to what it might be. The more intelligent physicists see the problems regarding Big Bang and they simply regard it as a placeholder. Typically, "the best we've come up with so far", although it isn't even that. The reality is logically bound to be steady state (due to acceleration of expansion, which is itself steady state, requiring constant input of energy or of an entity such as space) and the Big Bang is not steady state. It's one-off, or miraculous, meaning that no laws of physics apply, which of course means that it could logically never be proven. But don't worry .... it's wrong.

Proving randomness isn't easy and it may be impossible to deductively prove it since randomness can be regarded as a fundamental axiom. Proving free will is much easier.

However, if we accept that seemingly random events exist and the universe is full of them (quantum events) then if they were pseudo-random then they are determined. So, how to determine a seemingly random event so that it is bound to occur in exactly the precise form that it does occur in. The answer from the 1920s is "hidden variables" .... unseen, micro-mechanisms that cause and determine pseudo-random events. The trouble is, we can legitimately ask "and what programs or determines the hidden variables" and so on ad infinitum.

The result would be that at the very least we get a universe which is far, far more complex that it needs to be if randomness were real. And scientifically, that's always the way to go. Occam's Razor, Parsimony etc. Never invent two unknowns where one will do. So we can't deductively prove randomness but we must assume it since that's the appearance anyway. And that is the scientific solution. Theoreticians and scientists aren't exactly the same. Science is evidence-based.

As to why, it is indisputably related to Beatrix Potter's beloved tale of Peter Rabbit. Rabbits enjoy consuming carrots, but when their stomachs are filled, they must succumb to the biomechanics nature of reality. As a consequence of this act of succumbing, they are slowed down, and everything that encompasses them becomes a red (redshift, which plays prevalence in Hubble's discovery of the universe expansion, so more or less congruous). Yet, the carrot supplies them with a infinitesimal quantity of energy enough required so that they accelerate (much like the universe). With that, orange prevails over society with its non-illusory superiority as it credibly manages to elucidate cosmological phenomena all of which can ultimately be condensed to one and only thing - the arrow of time. The arrow of time, being condensed, is strongly related to condensed matter physics, which I, for some reason that is connected to the sheer nature of the hypothalamus, dendrites and all, gives off a radiant purple glow. But this purple becomes blue, because the oceans, covering much of the crust, are blue. Why does the crust play any relevance, you may be enticed to ask. Well, the solution lies in how we enjoy consuming pizza as consummate eaters. Whoops, it is blue, so some blueshift has occurred. I believe I may have been rushing around the crust a tad bit quick.

lol.. Sometimes this whole discourse seems like ‘randomness’ itself is some kind of defendant in a courtroom. It’s almost laughable. The ‘big’ words and jargon are not impressing anybody. I can almost  guarantee you that.    

I think the real issue is, when does it actually end.? ie.. When the wind blows, and the leaf falls to the ground should be random, right? When does ‘randomness’ stop, and ‘somethIng’ else take over? What is the beginning point of takeover? That’s when the conversation starts to get interesting.

What takes over from randomness, in your view?

I think it can only be "determined behaviour" ... the idea that nothing happens completely by accident but that causality is everywhere and cannot be escaped from  ... and that also, causality is one-dimensional and not open-ended as in reality.

So I can answer your question. The point where randomness stops and something else takes over is in some people's minds.>>>

What takes over is what we’re all here to find out together. I do believe it is somewhat spiritual in nature however. Meaning there is always an ‘override’ in place if you will. Or, on rare occasions, free will itself has it’s own special checks and balances.?!

Now, since you reposted rather quickly that tells me you are rather set in your ways. You don’t let ideas percolate, or resonate. I would rather you gave matters more thought across the board, with everybody.. : )

Actually, it's because I'm intelligent and because I have studied these things for decades. Try to be more positive in your thinking and reactions to others and perhaps "spirituality" will prosper wherever you go.

I should have thought this answer would be right up your street. Perhaps our minds can affect seemingly random behaviour? Perhaps you were getting at that but didn't even see it in my answer? Or was I suppose to wait three hours before commenting, to pretend that I'd thought about it to your satisfaction?

Ahh, as far as this intelligence thing goes.. Aren't  you suppose to let other people pump you up, instead of you doing it yourself and expecting me to believe you? Quite frankly, I’m just not impressed with you.

King ?....i wanna thank you sooo much ! i dont really know what to say. just that thats incredibly sweet of you. <3 Lola

Diamonds are a girls best friend right? : )

........

time can be looked at in many different ways, but i think that it mostly fall into 2 main categories...
first, the most realistic one which is just the way we experience it. only the present exist. the past is a memory, and the future yet to come.
in this school, i agree with you, the present is somewhat timeless.
second category.. (which take an open mind) our experience can be viewed as a 'cartoon flip book' analogy. the past, present, and future always exist and every moment is represented by a single page in this flip book of life.
in other words, what we experience as 'time' is just the passage of these pages (frames). this may sound silly at first, but i dont think so. actually this one branch onto many sub categories that id leave for another time. : ) are you ready to tell where are you heading with this?