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

It's a bit like the "free will" argument where it's suggested that we have no free will but we believe we do because not to do so would have some kind of terribly disastrous consequences on our ability to survive, presumably.

It's not half tortuous and artificial and all to deny something which in some people's infinite wisdom, shouldn't exist because they haven't worked out how it can exist. On that principle we should just give up and say that the universe doesn't exist. It's that daft and yet they are so intelligent and sure of themselves.

Indeed.! Let us all zero in on that unseen variable. What motivates it, what powers it, what is it?? Circle that, because it is the joker in the deck.

I've got it.
It's random!

Occam's razor says that when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,^[3] and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions. [How Adorable]

It's a random constant.

It's constantly random, though.

Yes, the principle of Parsimony of Hypotheses, according to which it is preferable to have randomness than an unknown mechanism which simulates it for unknown reasons. 

It might even be a variable constant. Randomness that is, not Occam's Razor.

The joker in the deck represents the random. But perhaps this is the order of things, that jokers exist.

There's no difference in the predictive value of a genuinely random variable and one where the randomness is perfectly simulated by an unknown mechanism driven by unknown constants. Of course, the idea of "Hidden Variables" is silly. They would be Hidden Constants, computed by the universe itself according to all the factors that exist in its existing state. Nonsense of course.

Exactly. Its almost like the 'joker' has or wants elemental status, I reject that. No apologies.

Why? I mean, you wouldn't expect the universe to exist but it does. Without understanding the fundamental mechanisms of quantum interaction, there's no reason to think that everything works like a snooker table. Effectively, randomness exists because if not, the deception would be perfect. If not, we might as well exist in a simulation, and that's another daft and illogical idea, championed by those with too much time on their hands.

Yes, I would expect the universe to exist.  ;  )

Because it does and so do you!

Exactly. Its almost like the 'joker' has or wants elemental status, I reject that. No apologies.

****

when ur harlequin lies in another's hand

their wish *boobiddy boo* is your command

fight the fight to take the blame

for everyone feels the same

all he do is play and play is all he do

u should know by now....the way he has eluded u 

then one day those bells they chime - coming from his cap

what u really want has met ur patience. that....

....sappy sap in a poemy poem

ur jester has just wandered home

why ?....b'cuz ur beautiful.

(and kinda lucky too)

****

Of course a definition of "randomness" is in order. So everyone is addressing the same. There is a difference between terms: random and chance. Then we have peoples perceptions of definitions. 

I'll even go far as to suggest every thing is "random". The randomness of everything in reality is it's order, negating the whole concept entirely. Or again, randomness does not exist, everything is deterministic, can be measured and predicted. Ultimately, it comes to a priori beliefs, stuff that's ingrained some time ago. Never is 100% objective observation in play. 

Randomness suggests a cause can not be observed. That we may lack the ability to observe the cause, but still believe one exists, there in lies the crux.

Randomness is that part of variation in behaviour that is not the result of any known information. A lot of this forum is about irreducible randomness - what you have when you know as much as is physically possible.

Random(ness) is data in which no pattern can be discerned.

Best to be accurate.

An accurate description. A simple description works best.

But ... the question will always be asked -

Do two discerned similar observations make for a pattern ? 

In other words, when does the data represent a pattern ?

So, I'd suggest a refinement.

Elroch's description :

Randomness is that part of variation in behaviour that is not the result of any known information.

and ask - because information is not known, can we conclude as such ? Does appearance of randomness qualify as being random - in a scientific setting?

i think that in order to define randomness, it first has to be divided to 2 categories.. true random and pseudo random. true random can be defined along the line of "without a cause" or "without a pattern", i.e attempting to describe the event or the mechanism that may allow true randomness. regardless of observers.
pseudo random may be defined from an observer point of view, and along the line of "lack of knowledge" or unpredictability.
but any attempt to define them together will undermine the importance of the differences. kinda like trying to define science to include science fiction, or define life to include Ai robots.