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

yes, all opinions are subjective and kind of like choosing your favorite sport team, but objectivity oversee all subjective opinions with no intention to chose a favorable one. so its different in this way.

and grand systemic metaphysics of the Leibnizian sort might one day come back into favor.

perfect. look at university enrollment/studies in the USA. its already going that way.

Perhaps a little back to front, but definitely getting to the point. A problem with the way you expressed this is that, with hindsight, it is always possible to find some story that explains the facts in what can be claimed to be a deterministic way. For example, if I look at a list of the dates of previous earthquakes, I can certainly come up with some set of rules that tell you exactly what class of dates earthquakes occur on. This set of rules are designed to work perfectly with all past data. It they really worked, you might have a successful deterministic relationship between date and earthquake occurrence. But you can see the rules won't be reliable in the future.

So the key is have rules that will apply to some earthquake we have not seen yet (interestingly, merely not having seen the data suffices), and for our rules to be successful for these.

It is clearly a very subtle matter to realise that there is a way to show that no such rules exist for quantum physics - much about what will happen absolutely cannot be predicted. The complete knowledge that would be necessary to do this simply can't exist (having partial knowledge imposes limits on other parts of the knowledge). And there are experiments that reveal this. The key is that there are many types of observation that can be made, and it can be mathematically proven that no single deterministic model can explain the statistical relationship between all possible combinations of observations (referred to as "Bell's inequality violations").

This is the sort of thing that is very difficult to see -  while Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen introduced the so-called "EPR paradox" as early as 1935, intended to show that there must be a flaw in quantum mechanics, based on classical assumptions that seemed reasonable to them, it took 30 years before John Bell described Bell's inequality and viewed it the other way round, meaning that quantum mechanics had fundamentally non-classical properties that are related to a weird sort of non-local randomness.  The "non-local" part is crucial, because any local randomness can in principle be explained by some hidden local information that we haven't yet been able to detect. Non-local randomness is different and can never be explained by what are referred to as local hidden variables.

its cool. this whole matterialism business is out of control

its understood that if true randomness exist, it is intrinsic to the mysterious behavior of particles and the QM world in general. so any good definition has to adress that directly.
regardless.. last time we looked at your definition it seemed fine, so my guess is that even by your own definition both randomness and determinism will remain an open questions, and we can look into that. but first comes first..

are you still disputing that the MWI physicists believe in determinism with no true randomness involved?

ohh trust me HiHo...thatsa WHOLE nuther tributary !

"True randomness" suggests randomness applies to the real world. By definition, it's very easy to see randomness all about/everywhere. It's very definition based on mathematical probability. 

All evidence supports the fact Deserts are dry.

Randomness can be abstractly proven. But the question with "true randomness" becomes - is this how nature/the real world works?

Now don't pretend not to understand it!

Do you dispute that Many Worlds adherents are mad, though?

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Since objectivity is merely the attempt to use our subjective minds in a methodical manner to bring in all the evidence and assess it intelligently, how is objectivity different from subjectivity except in that a person, when trying to be objective, presumably tries very hard to be objective?? That makes it a difference in quantity and not in quality.

MustangMate, isn't that a slightly dubious choice of words? You wrote "even our best random number generators are deterministic" .... and there are problems there for two reasons. Firstly, if you program a computer to generate pseudo-random numbers then obviously they aren't random. But in the 1980s I was really into computer programming and I used to test my skills by writing prime number generators and timing them against each other. The idea was to refine them and get the best balance between strategic or algorythmic components and straightforward brute force calculation. Regarding random number generators, it was obvious that a RNG has to have an outside source. For instance, if you had a Brownian Motion reading sensor and fed that in then that would generate truly random numbers and any chaotic (random) system that could be read would suffice. And I have heard, although this is only hearsay, that they are doing just that and generating truly random numeric series.

Many crazy physicists and yes, some physicists can do the maths but they can't think well. The idea that inventing an infinite number of universes satisfies Occam's Razor is nothing less than idiotic. Now, perhaps they don't think the universes are real and perhaps they do. Or some of them do and some don't.

Don't forget, we have people like this trying to think on their feet and help us through the Covid19 epidemic. Doesn't look too good.

this has turned totally bizarrre in the last 31 mins

MW involves a complete lack of understanding of the principle of parsimony of unknowns. I genuinely believe that people who believe it are either insane or at the very least their judgement is completely off. This is the problem .... allowing people who are good at maths to perform judgements that don't involve maths when very often, being good at maths means you live in a fantasy world in any case. Maths, like chess, is a virtual reality that allows us to make certain predictions regarding parts of the world **which we understand**.

That's because they are all ignoring the arguments.

I noticed.

To put it another way, Many words theory was a hypothesis that we used to think about as children back around 1961 or so. That was when we were very clever and not in the slightest tied to reality, and we were just playing.

Sorry, that was many words theory. Many worlds theory is a bit similar.

Hope that friend request wasn't pending for, like, three years, as happened recently.