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

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the - Real question ...which is

Is any observed phenomenon truly random? 

always have. but ijdk why we're pursuing this thats all. and im ok if its cosmological. its just wut wood be the path from here to there if we could prove TR isnt valid ? sorry in advance. but feeling hypothetical. 

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the - Real question ...which is

Is any observed phenomenon truly random? 

Mathematics can be made to agree with anything you like. It's abstract. So what? It's imaginary - what's the point in making imaginary examples to match?

If TR exists, prove it by any other means.

If there's no randomness? Then I'd be worried there's no free will. We may as well all become out and out hedonists, desperate criminals and so forth, because obviously, with no free will we can do anything we want and **it wasn't our fault**. I really don't buy the compatibilist nonsense.

Without randomness I would maybe get interested because obviously then I COULD maybe influence dice with my mind, as I know I can anyway. |\

I'll try to put the definition of T.R. into simple concepts if it will help.

Any sequence that isn't random will, sooner or later, be identified as generated by an algorithm or maybe a number of them.  That means it's generated by a method designed to simulate randomness but a computer always calculates, unless there's an outside source like I mentioned before, of a truly random series that can be read.

So with pseudorandom series, there are always patterns even if they're very difficult to detect. If a pattern is recognisable, that means that we don't have T.R. In order to recognise a pattern it is necessary to predict it. To put it another way, you haven't recognised a pattern if you can't work out what comes next.

Saying we're only monkeys doesn't help. That's an argument against the ape. It may be an ad simien argument.

Sorry, I'm probably not on form today and also I have learned that it's one thing to understand randomness and quite another to describe it well. You either have it or you don't maybe?

This is where you need to pick a definition of "truly random", so that this question has an objective meaning.

lol.. Now were breaking down T.R. into categories?

No, it's just that the term does not have a standard definition. I presented one which I am happy with and which has been accepted by some people here but @MustangMate has neither said he agrees to it nor been able to present one of his own (he did have a creditable try, but it was not fully successful).

It should be clear to everyone (but likely isn't) that statements using terms without a definition don't have a meaning. When only standard terms are used, this issue does not arise, but when non-standard ones are, it is absolutely key, because statements don't even have a meaning without the terms in them being defined.

Which is cool, but looking at it as all encompassing has never left us either.

Is any observed phenomenon truly random?

See above and then look at my previous posts where I explain that this is an established truth of modern physics.

Has biological programming been addressed yet? I'm quite certain that it factors into the 'equations' here.

You would need to elaborate in order to convince us of that.

And then there is assigning value to 'things' which has it's own unique heirachy in these calculations. All of which is being left out here. In other words.. lol

This seems vague and unconnected.

(1)<<<you're right but TR can be defined as human inability to predict.>>>
You've raised some interesting points which I'd like to answer but first of all, I'd like to make it clear that it IS clear (to me) that TR means "unpredictable". And that it doesn't involve humans, since such a TR is an ideal state .... one in which any and all apparent patterns can be explained through statistical probability. As Elroch made clear, when a human determines that no patterns are present, that can be only a probabilistic judgement in itself, however correct the judgement may be. At some stage we're bound to give up looking for patterns due to diminishing returns and that's why or where the confusion crept in. But we're agreed that the T.R. we're discussing is an ideal which is (hypothetically) real. I'll cut some of your less relevant or more descriptive stuff out, if I may, and try to answer salient points.

(2)<<<nondeterminists claim that TR is real. kindof like a black box phenomena in causality, that allows generation of truly random properties>>>
Ah well. I'm a non-determinst. The "black box" is actually the hidden means for determinism .... the hidden variables. Randomness itself is intrinsic to all matter in the universe at a fundamental level, so that randomness is tied up inextricably with everything. By their very nature, matter and other things are random.

(3)<<<and the D camp.. they believe that TR is no more than a fairy tale, and its only a result of human ignorance.>>>
Certainly, humans are "ignorant" about many things, I think this belief you speak of in the D-camp is no different from a belief in celestial Beings, and for exactly the same reasons. I know that "speaking against the man" is horrible, childish and abhorrent but I really see no intelligence in determinism. I mean by that, human intelligence. Their arguments are anti-intuitive but, far worse, there is no evidence for them either. The killer is, though, that their arguments are based on oversimplifications of "causality".

(4) <<<but here's the twist, because its important and somewhat confusing... both of them agree on humans inability to predict. thats not even a question anymore, but they still disagree on the existence of TR.>>>
Yes of course, both "sides" make assumptions. I think the determinists seem very childish in their thinking .... about the stage I reached when I was eight, and they  .... erm ... I think .... let's see, what would they think of the majority, because of course they're the ones who are setting themselves up as great intellectuals who, by simple deduction, can clearly see that most of the world is wrong and they're the ones who are going on and on about their silly beliefs ......... maybe they're just annoyed with us and so they think they're superior?? But, of course, we can't help thinking the way we do because we're programmed to think it, whilst possibly by sheer coincidence, they're programmed to believe what happens to be correct. I wonder how they imagine they know?

No sorry, they're the ones who are asses!

(5) as for your english experty.. sure, i would appreciate your corrections. just dont overwhelm me.. lol
I only do that when I'm bored or if I think the other person is being pedantic. I wouldn't dream of doing it to you.