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

I would say you are.

Random just means unpredictable, so any amount of unpredictability is "true" randomness. Parts of mathematics deal with the issue of how to describe all the different types of random behaviour that the monkeys might exhibit (but they are all truly random if they are unpredictable),

We need to know what we mean by "unpredictable". Someone might think that it refers to something that they sometimes can't predict, usually can't predict, never can predict, cannot be predicted by anyone using known techniques, or that a technique to make the prediction cannot ever be developed. None of these actually mean that there can be no technique to make a prediction because there is no pattern.

So perhaps it's more accurate to say that random series have no patterns.

for you king

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE2WjSmUcRA

elroch kindly remove your provocative post, you are well aware this is not the place for it.

I appreciate you guys didn't bite on this malicious attempt. thank you!

good to see ya uke. chill.. pretty please?

when having a conversation, its important that everyone talk within the same context. in the context of this specific thread, the op was questioning the nature of our universe and define it as 'true random'. i.e questioning the copenhagen interpretation.
this is different than avrage random generator, which is not truly random and only appear so.
in my opinion putting these two in the same basket completely miss the mark, because being understood is more important than being "correct". for me it was a vital lesson during my marriage : )
in the past you suggested that the term "absolute random" is more appropriate, and now that the op is here, you can apeal to him to change the title if its so important to you. (if i were you, i'd first wait a day or two for him to chill from your "malicious attempt" : )

Very cool, and very appropriate at the same time, nice! I struggle at times with the ‘patterns’ of random events, but that just adds to the mystery of truth. It’s not a takeaway, if that makes sense. After you posted that birdie, I flashed on the memory of the video below for some reason. ‘We’ are the stones..!?

Uke.. That’s the mild version of Elroch. : )

uke? I was starting to develop abandonment anxiety

Regarding the types of randomness, I introduced the non-standard term "absolutely random" to indicate something that is random to all agents (really some broad class of them).

To illustrate the difference, suppose one person rolls a die, gets a number and then puts it into a box. To a second person the number is random. To them the probability that it is any given number might be 1/6 (without special information). To the first person, the number is not random: they know what it is. So the randomness to the second person is a matter of their lack of information.

Time has this effect too, of course. Before you roll a die, its value is random. After you actually roll it, its value is fixed. These are the same event viewed from different viewpoints.

I like the Bayesian viewpoint, which makes it all about beliefs. Of course beliefs change depending on what information you have, so two beliefs about the same thing can easily be different.

In the context of quantum mechanics the point was that the state of a quantum system always has "absolute" randomness - there is never an agent like the one who knows the value of the die in the box). Part of the properties of the system has to be uncertain to all agents (due to Heisenberg).

elroch: "In the context of quantum mechanics the point was that the state of a quantum system always has "absolute" randomness" there is never an agent like the one who knows the value of the die in the box). as some believe

I added as some believe because its still an open question and the truth is that we just don't know (i like the rest of your post, its knowledgeable and informative)

moving on.. your definition above for absolute random seem as intended in the title of this thread,
but personally i dont see much difference between saying "absolute" or "true". both has subtle advantages. absolute being without a doubt and somewhat stronger, but 'true random' has the advantage to imply that 'random' by itself is really a false random. i.e it mostly use to describe pseudo random.

bottom line is that we need to separate true random from pseudo random, and as general random is largely used to describe pseudo random, i think that saying true random is fine.  if there was a specific word for describing absolute or true random it would be best, but im not aware of any, and think that either one can be used.
i think that everyone will appreciate you a little more if you delete your other post per the op request because you'll come across as mature rather than an ego driven child

and what do you have to say about it?

luring king

you guys are cool : ) shame i dont have much free time to log in anymore. i still try to read it tho

You may view it as an open question, but it is a conclusion of modern physics. Firstly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (discovered almost 100 years ago) implies this. Secondly the Bell experiments show that there is no possibility of an underlying deterministic explanation. This too implies the impossibility of complete knowledge. Note that this was the test of Einstein's doubt about quantum mechanics. He was not happy with the fundamental uncertainty and devised an experiment with a very surprising outcome to test the so called EPR paradox. It was many years before this was tested, but quantum mechanics has been shown to be correct in all of the experiments that have done so.

Thus physicists do not view this as an open question, but as an established conclusion.

this is no more than your personal declaration of subjectivity.
QM has shown to be correct from day one. it is the Copenhagen interpretation that is in question not QM, and all objective physicists agree to that.
they may adopt a preference to one or another interpretation, but never the less, they wont lie to themselves and confuse their belief with factual truth like a subjective person does.

I was about to collect some quotes from reputable physicists, stanford encyclopedia, cryptography experts, and such. but i've already done that in the past to no avail.
it did remind me of another quote...

"Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results"

in other words.. this is getting old, and you just dont seem to get it. or maybe you do, and you just enjoy to argue? never mind that, because i dont.

I was really hoping for a conversation about gliding today, because im leaving on a business trip in few hours, and thinking to take the opportunity to try that ; )

There is no such thing as the truth of an interpretation. Science consists of models that have predictions. All interpretations of quantum mechanics give the same predictions, so all are equally valid as scientific models of reality.

I don't much like the Copenhagen interpretation as it is usually expressed and prefer others. But I can't fault its equal ability to predict reality.

Note that every interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that there is always uncertainty about at least some potential future observations of any quantum system. This is the incompleteness of information I referred to and you denied.

lol.. Yep,  that'll do the trick. My step dad is a flight instructor, and I could have had my pilots license many years ago.  Flying corporate jets, two seaters and such. Just don't feel so lucky in those things. 

The gliders on the other hand I do.  :  ) My goal is to land on a desert rock formation at night time under a gagillion stars. Stand up there and smoke a stogie, and go wow I finally did it. Then glide on down to camp to meet my awesome girlfriend,  where we are spending the night. Totally rational eh?

Now on to our friend Uke. It was good to hear from him the other day, if only for a short time. Pretty sure he is always with us in spirit. I also noticed that when you gave him that brew and chicken wing he would be going hungry. So let's try giving him just a little more food and drink. : )

good, so if you entertain all interpretations maybe i wrongly tagged you with subjectivity. but still, how about the 'standard' many worlds interpretation? i dislike it, but its fully deterministic.
where do you find uncertainty there? of course you uncertain about which branch you'll end up in, as an individual, but its meaningless to the universe as a whole, which already know that every possibility will be executed. the only thing that really matter is the starting point.
am i missing something?

quote from Stanford encyclopedia:

"The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics holds that there are many worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics."

lol king, thats one fancy bloody mary, ..i must rush now