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

Well at least, I provided some information in the initial pages of the forum. Then, you all diverged from rationality...

The "Case of the BB" may have well died, but not the General Principle of Reasoning. The GPR .

The GPR stipulates that using scientific observation and measurement,

Events of the past can be traced all the way back to - ORIGIN

Since the events leading up to Origin are claimed to be well known and understood, the final Conclusion is often readily made. There is no need for actual observation of Origin - it can be logically deduced and if mathematics is your fancy proofs abound. So say the sorcerers and soothsayers.

firstly.. it would be nice if you lose your narcissistic tone of voice .. just saying

secondly, agreement by silence is not a fallacy. it is a sort of dispute that modern courts address regularly.
of course its an unorthodox way to reach an agreement, but its a last resort because you keep avoiding my proposition with distractions, absurdities, and what not.

here it is again..

"we have 2 schools of reputable physicists. one claim true randomness exist. and the other reject it and claim absolute determinism. this is a fact, so lets stick to it and avoid irrelevant distractions.
consequently, because those expert physicists cant agree one way or another, any competent person without emotional attachment to the topic will agree that true randomness remain an open question."

If you are to exclude the SS theory solely because of its inadequacy to elucidate the CMB, then that is unjust. It is true that for the steady state model to explain amounts of hydrogen and helium, radiation background must be in the far infrared part of the spectrum. Thermalise it with metallic whiskers. Sorted.

If you are to exclude the SS theory solely because of its inadequacy to elucidate the CMB, then that is unjust.

unjust ?...lemme say it a little nicer. its IGNORANT !!

if it didnt exist ?....then how wuz i put2gether ?

Events of the past can be traced all the way back to - ORIGIN

k. lets say u do2avoid a argument. then wut ?...u look like homer simpson in the mirror and go...uhhh now wut ?...idk the trail dead ends...doh !!

I thought that one had already been answered sufficiently, Elroch.

It has and the point remains exactly as I stated it. There are events which are random to every entity that does not have the event in its past. No stronger randomness is even conceivably possible in our Universe as far as I can see. Would you disagree with either of those two statements?

That's perfectly correct. Anyone can claim that such and such a theory explains something. They can even claim that it is demonstrated that such and such a theory explains it better than anything else that has been thought of.

Anyone who then believes that such and such a theory is correct isn't a scientist.  They don't understand either logic nor causality.

The scientific method tells you any hypothesis is tentative until it has predictive success. All of the standard features of the Big Bang model achieve this.

"we have 2 schools of reputable physicists. one claim true randomness exist. and the other reject it and claim absolute determinism. this is a fact, so lets stick to it and avoid irrelevant distractions.
consequently, because those expert physicists cant agree one way or another, any competent person without emotional attachment to the topic will agree that true randomness remain an open question.">>

But all physicists do not have the same degree of expertise. They are not all equally intelligent. They do not all work from exactly the same information pool and some of them are more prone than others to reach conclusions which are unjustified as final conclusions.

Having discussed the issues of determinism and free will online for about 15 years, I think that those who support determinism are far less convincing, for a number of reasons.

Believers in determinism tend, in my experience, to be obsessive, which lends force to their arguments without adding to their weight. Also, a few years ago I believe I worked out a definite, logical refutation of determinism. I would always back my own judgement when I know that I have fully considered a discussion. I can't remember the deductive formula because, not being obsessive, I often don't write things down but simply accept the result and move on.

I tend to think that the obsessive nature of those arguing for determinism manifests as a kind of imperative in their own minds which reinforces their belief in it.

One argument I came up with, by the way, is that if determinism is true then the brain could not possibly have evolved. We would have to explain our existence by means of hypotheses which are not allowed on Chess.com.

I argue that true randomness does exist.

Does this MEAN I believe in Determinism?

This is where you all make the CRUCIAL mistake -

Believing it must be either or.

Non locality+Determinism -----) Signalling

Free Will+Determinism -----) Signalling

Let me say it a tad bit nicer, since I am the creator of that post. It is nescient, too inchoate an idea, disrespectful, unacceptable and only acceptable for those who yearn for the creationist nonsense that the theological implications of the philosophical implications of the Big Bangers that loom over the cosmic theory of the Big Bang. (------ Great sentence structure.