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

sadly, the intellectuals go into greater and greater levels of complexity because the can never see the simple truth of something.

...with a tad bit knowledge of physics. 

Can you please recommend a Youtube channel... 

I've just given you all a crash philosophy course on basic idealism. That will be 50 cents please.

Determinism (note the word) is the exact opposite of randomness.

Suppose some event is going to happen and the result could be 0 or 1. If there is no way of knowing which it will be, the event is random. If the result is certain to be 0, the event is deterministic.

I know what I'm talking about.

I'll explain it more clearly. We have a notion of true randomness, which is an ideal which we assume MIGHT correspond to a concrete reality. The concrete reality we can call "real true randomness", for the purposes of this discussion.

However, we start from the premise that "real true randomness" may exist and that "true randomness" is an ideal that is meant to correspond to it, if it exists, or to set a limit, if it doesn't. We have no access to the mechanisms at work, if any, and all we can do is to go ahead and analyse sequences for patterns, to the best of our ability.

Each of these ideas or concepts refers to the same thing, because we have no means of distinguishing them and because they define the same as one another. For three millennia and maybe more, mankind has been trying to theorise about idealism. We have Platonists, for whom, perhaps, the only real is the ideal. There are real idealists and probably ideal realists. They're like the Socialist Workers' Party of Tooting and the Workers' Socialist Party. Each approach is only a matter of transient perspective on the same thing. It is probably necessary to study idealism is philosophy for about two years to make absolutely sure that you have noted all the differing approaches and yet all we would have done would be to have undertaken a course in practical psychology.

Ultimately, there is no difference except one of transient, human perspective.

There was once a man called Reginald Kapp. He was a British academic in the 1950s, and he retired and they made him a Professor Emeritus at Leeds University, which is a kind of honourary title based on merit. His field of expertise was hypothesis formation and he was considered a world authority. His pet interest was cosmology. He devised a hypothesis on the formation of the universe and this was in the days of Steady State.

Those days were over by the 1950s (unless you mean there were just a very few die hard disbelievers in the Big Bang). Hubble's work was in the 20s and 30s, and that was enough to convince almost everyone. Einstein notably considered a steady state cosmology in 1931, but serious problems and the strong evidence of expansion led him to drop it like a hot potato.

It was intended to be just an example of how such an hypothesis could be formed but I read his book when I was about 17, in 1968 and I felt it was so brilliant that his hypothesis stood a very high chance of being more or less true. I stopped believing that the Big Bang is the best explanation there and then.

I can understand that: a beautiful hypothesis is very appealing. But the evidence proves steady state theories wrong. The young Universe we see far away was very different to the Universe we live in now, and this is most so early on.

If we have nothing but the universe is, essentially, a quantum generator, and if that quantum generator works by randomly generating one quantum of space and one of matter in a direct correlation with the volume of existing space, then the initial singularity doesn't need to be the genesis of the entire universe but the genesis of one quantum of matter. All quanta of matter are associated with a quanta of space and in effect, space is anti-matter and so, combined, they have a net charge and net mass of zero.

Steady state means that it looks similar at different times. This simply isn't so. There is a time 13.8 billion years ago when the Universe was a hot, nearly uniform, expanding gas. Thereafter changes include the formation of galaxies and quasars, the disappearance of quasars, generations of stars starting with ones with almost no heavy elements to later ones with heavy elements from earlier supernovae, and so on.

As the volume of space expands, so does the rate of generation of space and associated matter. The effect is an accelerating expansion, just like that which has been observed to exist. If all units of matter associated with space have a half life then extinctions of matter, happening randomly, will be concentrated in areas of concentration of matter. This applies if space is the stable part of the duo and associated with genesis of new matter and new space at a constant rate per unit volume of space,  and matter is the unstable element which carries the half life.

None of those unverified hypotheses alters the fact that the Universe was much denser and more uniform very early in its life and all of the other changes. The Big Bang is also excellent at explaining the occurrence of the different elements, starting with a mix formed during the early expansion (when temperatures were hot enough for fusion), and changing thereafter as stars burn.

A half life, like in radioactivity, doesn't point to which atoms of uranium or quanta of matter break down and extinguish themselves. The macro effect is random at a constant rate but nothing can be predicted for specific units of matter. At all times, each has exactly the same chance as any other of disappearing, no matter how long it has existed.

So since matter disappears fastest where it is concentrated most and at each extinction of a unit of matter, an associated unit of space disappears too, that means that space contracts near concentrations of matter, proportionally to the mass of matter present. And that accounts for gravity.

The situation is basically that the regions of intergalactic space are expanding and generating matter but each random extinction imparts a slight contraction and over time, that imparts a spin to the clouds of intergalactic dust, which gradually turn into discrete galaxies and become centres of extinction. The mathematics is there to account for the element of imparted spin, apparently, and I could follow it when I was 17 much better than I could explain it now.

I like this hypothesis and what's more it follows Occam's Nose much better than the Big Bang.

Problem is - it’s people saying this stuff. Science doesn’t have a mouth.