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

ok then

Actually - the more rolls you run - the more variations you can have.
Which isn't getting 'tighter'.
But the bell curve may be taking better shape with more rolls - and more representative of the general tendencies.
-------------
Regarding 'true randomness' - philosophy overlaps with science and math.
And starting with Heisenberg and Schrodinger - it was proven that the universe intrinsically contains randomness. My way of wording it there.
Its very important in quantum mechanics (apparently) and has various implications.
But what about generating truly random numbers - mathematically?
Turns out that there's still that connection to physics there too.
Via quantum computers and Qbits.
One could argue that math plays 'second fiddle' to physical reality. Could be called 'physics'.
Consider Cantor proving you can have one infinity greater than another.
But those are mathematical infinities - not physical infinities.
Many people don't like physical infinity. 
But inward infinity (the continuum of such) seems popular. Why?
Easier to get one's 'mind around it'. Pun not intended but its there.
Point: true randomness apparently comes from physics as opposed to math.
-----------------
Regarding the idea of a game of chess - its result - being decided in advance ... I would tend to reject that myself.
Fatalism versus determinism versus 'pre-determined' versus 'purely random'
Those are all positions that people might take - each with some but limited validity.

I’m not going to get into long tangents or circular debates here. You’ll find enough of those elsewhere.

That said, quick clarification: on this thread, “true randomness” is used in a single sense, an event that breaks determinism. The question of determinism is an open one, and people can take different positions on it, but claims that determinism has been proved or falsified are not established and will not be accepted here.

randomness is to mean 'breaks determinism'?
That's fine. Heisenberg proved that happens.
Gigantic development in science. Well established. Basis of quantum mechanics.
But it doesn't mean determinism is 'falsified'.
Proves its limited.

it all depends how deep u wanna take it.

a fresh article defending libertarian free will, but not sure what to make of it yet. it was published last month, but feels very 20th century.. “QM killed determinism” kinda nonsense lol. will dig into it later, hopefully it’s better than the abstract.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-026-05455-7

even after reading it i’m still not sure what to make of it. anyways, starting with the good.. the authors do not hide behind vague definitions, nor reduce free will to mere agency. they literally reject both determinism and true randomness, and instead replace randomness with a unique concept they call “pervasive indefiniteness”, which in simple terms is supposed to be an intrinsic feature of our universe that, unlike randomness, can be harnessed and allow libertarian free will.

they don’t offer any mechanism to support pervasive indefiniteness beyond a conceptual idea, which is fine, but i think the paper could have been way more interesting if they focused on it in more details.

but instead, they focus on attacking determinism, and that’s where it all falls apart. their whole argument relies on the copenhagen interpretation as if it were settled science rather than just another interpretation, dismisses deterministic alternatives, and worse, relies on common misconceptions to support it.

for example, they recognize that many worlds Interpretation is deterministic but claim that “our branch” is probabilistic, as if it change anything. that’s observer uncertainty, not true randomness in the theory..

same with trying to use bell's theorem to reject bohmian mechanics under locality. bohmian mechanics is non local by design, so that objection doesn’t even fly.

so yeah, kind of a shame. instead of building a solid argument for their own idea, they recycle heisenberg, bell, and other old 20th century “QM killed determinism” narrative. i guess we’ll never get rid of them 60’s lol.

Crickets.. lol

https://youtu.be/Olfg9KK_bmE?si=L9SwiBrVcgudmBqJ

and while i’m here, Greene explain the difference between free will, and agency..

https://youtu.be/B6HryoK4_4g?si=7-drmp3KooToBwR-

well, after watching it again, he doesn’t explicitly call it ‘agency’. instead, he calls it ‘the other kind of freedom’ and ‘the freedom we have’, but it’s practically the same thing as agency.
the point is that libertarian free will and agency are two distinct concepts, yet too often both are labeled as ‘free will’ and the video explains the difference from a physics pov.

baby vox reunion? ayy pechanga!! jaja

I’m just curious if cc still max out 5 consecutive posts

would never guess old school k-pop could be so much fun.. lol. Ayyy pechanga!

https://youtu.be/jrZc8hKY6lg?si=TIdunkh70Gdh5YOT

i LUV k-pop !! and k-movies too ! thx hiho !! ♥xo♥