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

I only sent it like 20 minutes ago, it’s fine

. And I have heard, although this is only hearsay, that they are doing just that and generating truly random numeric series.

So "They" say.

Here's the issue. True randomness suggests No cause. Not only not "knowing of any but suggesting none exists. Looking for a specific cause or combination of several, leads to an never ending search back to the beginnings of Time. When none is found, by default it becomes "random". 

Futile search.

Everything is connected, ultimately it's the sum of all interactions that influence events. The events are neither random nor deterministic. The metaphors are a poor description of reality, a simplistic lens for viewing two extremes.

There are no extremes. Not somethings are random and some not. The Universe is ordered but not deterministic - Dependent Origination.

Because non-locality depends thoroughly on the fact that measurements are unknown beforehand, we can say that this is a consequence of observers' free will, thereby transforming the implication.

Regarding the compatibility of free will and determinism, some compatibilists have argued that the human soul is very much separate from the outside world. This soul is apparently the source of free will, and not by the laws of nature that govern determinism. I don't want to digress on too long, for there are already an abundance of sources online and in publication form that you can view.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46931/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_List,%20C_Free%20will_List_Free%20will_2015.pdf

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/419398

This link may also shed some light:

http://www.cogprints.org/341/1/FREEDOM.htm

Why support the MWI? To avoid any fears you had prior about the collapsing of your dainty wavefunction, and someone in a parallel universe can just about elucidate the rest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness should tell you something 

Yes and I'm arguing against extremes, if you like.

For instance, radioactive decay. The probablility of any particular nucleus breaking down at any time is a constant and therefore radioactive substances have a rate of decay based on the fact that a proportion of nuclei break down every time interval. That, if you like, is the deterministic part, but I don't think that is the main substance of this discussion. Is the breakdown of a particular nucleus at any given time a random event or determined by prior states of the universe? Everything we know about radioactive decay tells us that there can be no determinism involved because each nucleus effectively has no history.

So it's random. 

Thanks but doesn't seem like a great article to me. That's the trouble with Wiki. It can be really good, depending on who wrote it and on the editing processes, or not. My late brother, Red Heylin, edited tens of thousands of "learned" Wiki articles and often his correct alterations were edited out. Wiki is a constant war of attrition and only good for a very basic overview. He wanted me to be involved in editing Wiki. No way!

Google "Red Heylin". He died 2016. Also known as Prem Sakal, Richard Chapman, Kal Heylin.

Alright.. Im thinkin Uke has been with us all along. Perhaps this whole thread is one big science project. (Am I close?   ) lol      

If not, let's roll with it. What we know is that randomness exists. We also know it has it's boundaries. That is a rational starting point for any discernment so.. wtf

Thirty years on, our successors will be howling with uncontrollable fits of laughter at how we petty predecessors managed to generate a forum with such petty facts. The science project is born, but decades on, when humanity can but assimilate large sums of information, it will face its demise. Although scientific progress in the 21st century isn't going all too well with a global pandemic...

It is surprising that you can't see that "big" models cannot be elegant and simple. Mathematics is full of these. Eg, the hierarchy of sets in any of the standard set theories. But also large algebraic objects like the infinite dimensional Hilbert Space that underlies one interpretation of quantum mechanics. The "sum of all possible paths" interpretation favoured by Feynman is also a huge model, is quite closely related to the MWH and was one of the reasons this arose. It is also a model which is very satisfying, especially as described by Feynman, who pointed out how almost all of the vast array of literally all possible paths cancel out for mathematical reasons, effectively leaving only the paths of least action.

dont EVEN try to call it the MW hypotheses. its nothing more than a Interpretation (teeth grit to shooting pains). and all but fictitious. so im not gonna let u get all 'elegantly' emotional cuzzu twist-customized 'your' math and got estrogenically giddy. only cuz ur the #1 promoter of analytical thought w/out emotion. so leave the emotions to me and stay outta my expanse.   ::/

ohh !! and s/t else. tell me why we hafta satisfy Occam ? u can eff-off if u think im gonna ans to science for sciences sake (squinting). 

You don't have to. You are just a lot more likely to be right if you do. I shouldn't imagine that would be much of a concern to you.

Everett and Deutsch refer to Multiple Worlds as a "theory", in the sense of hypothesis. They explicitly believe the other worlds are as real as ours, although acknowledging that this cannot be tested by any known means.

ok fine. lettem be explicit all they want. but u urself preach that its not science if it cant be tested right ? and as far as his razor goes ? he can go & shave you w/ bias cream. as im perfectly capable of shaving myself.

Yes, you are making good points today. It's not a scientific hypothesis until there is at least a conceptually feasible way of testing it. It's philosophy, I suppose!

oh wow !....thank u so much 4ur blessing ! i feel so privileged in receipt of  (u patronizing bazz-turd).

 Everything we know about radioactive decay tells us that there can be no determinism involved because each nucleus effectively has no history. - Opti

Each nucleus has no history ???

I suppose by some definition it qualifies has having no history, but that can be disputed. 

AGAIN - The idea revolves about finding a cause/causes. Just because no cause is found does not by default mean "random". The decay IS being effected by it's immediate surroundings to everything else in the Universe. Everything has an effect, great or small. It's about learning what all the effects in play are when trying to understand how nature works. Often, a highly visible cause to an event is observed. But whether or not true randomness exists can never be answered conclusively by abstract thought. 

"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."

i think that the difference has to do with level of beliefs, emotional attachment, etc
take the topic for example.. true randomness (TR)

many people adopted a subjective belief in TR and for them its some sort of a scientific truth with the mechanism of the wave collapse to support it.
but from an objective pov, you dont really develop any strong belief in TR, you simply think of it for what it is. a valid possibility.

you asked about the MW.. i used to think of it as a very low probability because it sound so delusional, but i came to realize that the standard model is not any better, so it doesnt really matter.