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

I would not describe acknowledging very low alcohol consumption to be an "admission". It's just a fact about which I have no reason to be proud or ashamed. I am sorry that you are so perturbed by being badly wrong, but I advise you to learn from the mistake.

I can't understand why you are one of those who is persistently abusive towards me, but it only reflects badly on you. I request you to be more civilised.

Hey !....u started it !

....and know that the only person ur fooling is urself.

first off, this wasnt meant as hostility, but there is no pleasant way to convey such a message.
second, the more you talk? the more you prove me. for real! you just dont understand it, and i dont have the time right now.
heres an introduction..

https://www.businessinsider.com/narcissists-are-irritating-and-attention-seeking-but-successful-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

No, I did not.

It is not narcissistic to explain that (with all due humility) I am well-qualified to make reliable statements about this specific subject topic.

Neither is it to present scientific knowledge in an area outside of my own specialism, from the point of someone who recognises the expertise of others and realises that acknowledging that expertise is the most reliable way to accurate beliefs.

Rather these things are appropriate and sensible. Well, unless you consider provoking attacks from misguided people to be not sensible.

This exhibits pathological confidence in a reckless guess that has already been refuted. Bear in mind I KNOW things you can only wildly guess.

Whodat talking bout me eh?

ur just mad cuz u got called out for wutchu really are.

u need help elroch. gettit now....before its too late. as ur self-medicating is a barney band-aid over a much-much deeper wound. and remember, u can't get treatment for NPD until after u fix the SA problem.

What is more rhetorically persuasive -- Elroch's tortured prose, or the Ghostess Lola's picturesque feet and prose?

Let's the Readers Decide, or just flip a coin?  LOL.

The truth cannot hide --
Let the reader decide.
Elroch's tortured prose
or Lola's shapely toes?

You're trying to place yourself outside the universe to imagine that, though, which you can't do. So what's outside the universe? Well, nothing. To say that the universe is floating in nothingness makes the nothingness into something but since the universe is all that exists, there's a different kind of nothing that isn't the universe and it isn't outside the universe because there is no outside since the universe is all that exists and that's all we need to know.

If there were, hypothetically, other universes then that isn't science because it isn't provable, because to prove it would mean an interaction between that universe and this one, which would mean that they were not separate and different.

Another objection is that you are imagining the different universes ... an infinity of them ,,,, as separated spatially. But why should that be, since the hypothesis is that they are really in different existences altogether. Not all set out in rows or anything like that. So your intuitive problem with "the outside of a universe" isn't resolved.

Never mind, Elroch. It's clear to me that you're very highly intelligent and highly knowledgeable. My only source of criticism would be that the fact of your academic accomplishments means that you've bought into the sum total of theoretical exploration and due to the sense of co-operation which exists, as well as, no doubt, a sort of friendly rivalry for the most part, you tend to stick up for those who are maybe more creative than you and who may from time to time venture a very unsound combination. In theoretical physics, that is. Also, it should be clear to you that when people outnumber a source of irritation they tend to be emboldened. Some time when and if I'm passing Cambridge, perhaps you would permit me to buy you an elderflower cordial. It isn't likely to happen for a while. I have an old friend there .... someone called Elisa Meschini. She's editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry and a Labour politician. I want to have a nice argument with her some time.

Could you give an example of what you mean about theoretical physics? I have arrived at a position of absolute objectivity. Where I like a hypothesis (like the Everett multiple world concept, itself inspired by Feynman's beautiful sum of all possible paths interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has an intuitive "aha" that Schroedinger never managed. ) I accept only what is tested as scientific truth and the machinery as only possibly more than that.

I think there is room for confusion about this. There are several different issues here: only one is about scientific truth - the testable predictions. Positive views of the aesthetics of a model are something else, not to be confused with certainty in its truth.

See you when you pass by.

"I have arrived at a position of absolute objectivity." *(direct quote from above).

Now you're really starting to sound like a BOT, Elroch.

Please take a chill pill, for posterity's sake. 

Yes, I am trying to be a "scientific method bot", as that is the way to be objective!

My take is Elroch is yanking your chains with his dribble. Nobody actually believes that stuff ... come on really? He's gatcha going sideways. 

Whether or not True Randomness exists in nature - I've presented both views. My position has been is something is found to be truly random, than everything else must be so.

 Somethings are random and some things are not ? Sorry ... can't work that way.

It's story time..

Are “trustworthiness” and “integrity” bogus concepts?

I went into the bank awhile back to make a deposit, when a customer came in with a look of shock on his face.

He went to the teller and said, "Did you see that guy who just left? He kicked the door, and was cussing--is everything OK?" When he said this, the teller laughed.

"Oh, he does that all the time," she said, "it's just how he is. You get used to it--he's always the same."

What was interesting to me about this whole event was, if it had been a customer who was always polite and pleasant who'd started cussing and kicking the door, the bank personnel probably would have called the cops instead of laughing.

Why did they laugh? Because the guy was predictable. They knew what he was going to do, and would have thought something was wrong if he DIDN'T cuss and kick the door. In a strange way they could "trust" him.

I've written about this before, but it is such an important concept, I want to re-visit it today: I'll take "predictability" in a person over "trust" and "integrity" any day of the week.

Why? Because "trust" and "integrity" are two highly emotionally charged words, and everyone has a slightly different definition of what they mean... and that's where problems start.

What usually happens is this: two people get in a relationship with different definitions of "trust" or "integrity." One person does something they think is perfectly OK, the other thinks it's a violation of trust or integrity. They then classify the other as not being "trustworthy" (a very negative thing, something no one wants to be known as), and map that "untrustworthiness" into other areas of their life.

Every time they do something they don't like they build the "untrustworthy" image more and more, until a big blow up occurs, a blow up that was precipitated because two people had two different map/models of the world when it came to emotionally charged concepts.

Another problem with "integrity" and "trustworthiness" is, everyone thinks they have integrity and can be trusted... even the most hardened and ruthless of criminals. People love to impose their own "integrity map" on others because it makes them feel good.

It's not that "honesty" and "trustworthiness" are useless concepts--they are, and people in general can pretty much agree on what is and isn't dishonest. It's the specifics where they get into trouble, and the act of imposing their definition of trust/honesty on others that causes friction.

That's why I much prefer the concept of predictability--it's emotionally neutral, and lays the groundwork on how to deal with individual people. Instead of imposing your map on them, you elicit and observe theirs and deal with them based on observed, recurring behaviors.

Let me give you an example. Years ago, I had a girlfriend who was, shall we say, a bit dramatic. If there was no drama, she'd create it. But I noticed something interesting about her. If I performed a "show of strength" every three days, the drama would cease. If I went over three days, it would start up again.

So, I was stern with her every three days, and the drama went away. Why this worked I have no idea (and it's not something that applies to all women), but it did. She was predictable.

When you judge someone based on predictability, you can have relationships you could never have if you used trust/honesty as a measuring stick. Why? Because no one wants "dishonest" or "untrustworthy" people in their lives--makes you look like a fool. But when you use predictability you can spend time with people in
certain areas, and avoid them in others.

For example, I used to have a friend who I just could not bring around any woman I was interested in. He'd cut me off, try to date her, and do everything he could to talk me out of seeing her. Obviously not behavior I want in my life. But, he was also a funny, personable guy, and someone who was great to go to happy hour with the guys.

So, I simply saw him for happy hour, enjoyed his company and that was that. He was predictable in that area, and just as predictable when I brought a woman... so I didn't do that.

I had another friend who had a habit of flaking out about half the time we agreed to get together. But, he was good guy when we did get together, and I enjoyed hanging out with him. So, instead of getting rid of him, I always made plans that included other people and if he showed, great, if not I still had a good time. He was predictable, and I managed our relationship based on predictability.

Obviously this carries over in all areas of relating to women. All you need to do is determine if she's predictable, and spend time with her in the areas you can predict. When you quit worrying about if you can "trust" her, and start spending time with her based on predictable behavior, you quit worrying and your emotions around her are stable.

Stability of emotion leads to good decision making, and allows you to choose your outcomes with women. So, the next time you're with one you find attractive, stop asking, "can I trust her?" and start asking "is she predictable?" Things will go much better.