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

Events are neither deterministic nor random.

Ever thought the wrong terms are being used to describe observations?

They tend to be seen as the two major pillars of any argument against determinism. You know, it used to be thought that people who believe in determinism are mad or maybe deeply depressed. I thought it until ten or twelve years ago but since then, there seems to be evidence that people just learn arguments put forward by others, and regurgitate them, so they've never thought deeply about it. But even if that's true, I think it must affect people's minds for the worse and I'd be surprised if it isn't associated with mental illness even if only mild. I know that may seem like an offensive argument to some but this is the post-covid age when you can't open your mouth without offending someone. If you argue that locking down the world is crazy and will cause more distress and deaths than not doing so, you cause offence. We have to accept either never to question anything or accept that causing offence to others is not really a problem provided it isn't done for its own sake.

Why do I constantly feel that this forum is coming to an imminent end? 

Chocolate is the most inchoate item you could own. 'Tis, after all comprehended by much of the 2 billion children, one of them including me. If there is anything more rudimentary than chocolate, then it is the sine qua non of life, water. (Don't rouse on me, chemists.)

Chocolate chip cookies?

Looking back on the last page, I should probably retract my posts. Some of the posts I made are irrelevant. 

Yes, we should never make irrelevant posts. There's no such thing as enlarging on the discussion and talking around it perhaps to hit on a useful line of enquiry by chance. We must be clear about that.

By 'irrelevant' do you mean that they were random?  

Addressed to the dear professor by the way..

Huh. I was anticipating someone to address me as a professor. Perhaps you did not investigate the possibility that I may not be a professor? I presume you would have, but may have thought it somewhat blunt to question my status.

If I were a decent professor (decent personality-wise), would I include in my chess.com username of all things my status as a professor? Or would I likely abstain from displaying my professor title and merely restricting my username to be simplistic, something like InsolentIgnoramus or CoolCherry?

If I were a sensible professor, would I include irrelevant posts on a forum in chess.com? Or would I wish to preserve my status as a professor and go about the case appropriately. Indeed, there have been some inane professors (I won't name any that particularly stood out), but why would they go to the chess.com forum which contains a compendium of academic remarks and what not? Surely they would be inane enough to completely infest the forums with quirky remarks?

I have not, so presumably I am not inane to an extreme degree. 

And here's one last thing to ponder before I leave:

If I were a professor, would I invest copious time into writing this on a chess.com (of all places) forum?

By irrelevant I mean that they had null connection to the topic at hand. Nothing more than that.

Professor.. We have physicists here doing just that. Get off your low horse. (I like the CoolCherry one btw)

Randomness is incomplete knowledge. Modern physics says knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete. This answers the title question.

and guilt feelings regarding chocolate.

uhhh, we needta talk

Ultimately, all discussions are subjective. I've heard it said that people who don't believe in determinism are fooling themselves but the truth is that people who don't understand that all our opinions are subjective are certainly doing so! Yes, there's evidence but we select it and interpret it.

howzit gonna help ?....do u feel imprisoned if its all deterministic ?....are ur exonerated if ur emotions 'force' u do s/t u end up regretting later ? i mean if it makes one happy to feel controlled then fine. i know no one lives in my body (some try few succeed lol !) and i feel better off witha mixa both FW-D. but then ive warmed up2the lead-follow thing. and really ?....i get kinda touchy suspicious when it swings one way too far. yee !

and as far as u can do a/t u want if u wannit bad enuf ?...is f***ed up & dishonest. s/w determined out 4u ? id say. i mean who here doesnt have unfulfilled hopes ? i know id kill myself y-day if i wuz alwayz driving on dream street and never in bumpity bump traffic.

The typical answer for most binary choices is "both."

"There is no such thing as non-discursive access to truth." (Richard Rorty)

"Words Make the World."  (Stanley Fish)

In our Universe there are many binary possibilities which we know will be resolved one way or the other but cannot know which. A simple example is transmission through a polarising filter.

Not unlike Maxwell's Demon, (or photons as particles versus waves), or Barrow and Tipler's version of the Anthropic Cosmological Principal. 

Or thee Ghostess's fingernails for that matter.