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

That is more explained that even I can do ^^^^^

Oh dear..

Opti ? You wasted too much negative energy on the bot. It hasn’t changed it’s answers since sign-up. Probably hasn’t been updated in 10 years - it’s the same ole stuff. Now, you want to know about predictability and certainty? Read The World according to Elroch 🚀 None of which to be taken personal. People who know all the incorrect answers defy logic. The reasons to which perhaps only their hairdresser knows. 

What's wrong is you getting so personal. You're out of line here. You've made Elroch your nemesis, for some reason. Whatever it is, it's on you. Maybe you need to reflect on that.  Just an observation.

Otherwise, I've enjoyed reading the discussion about this topic. I'm sure others have as well, even though we don't participate.

THX !!...from me & cookie

elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"

it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"

please stop undermining his thread

That is in no sense a definition. The mere fact that it is a QUESTION should give that away!

No. Clearly from my eye this is where you are the one who has totally missed the point and direction of the topic. Because people do not agree does not mean they don’t understand. Briefly I thought troll but no one can be so genuinely illogical. You’ve defined the topic to suit your agendas. Nobody I’ve seen agrees. Opti was out of line. Seems he lost it over needless frustration. I learned long ago to take your responses in humor. A little effort and I can predict your response! Now there’s proof randomness doesn’t exist 😎

The question about a chess game is actually excellent and right to the point. The question leads directly to the issue. Philosophical questions. Science makes the observations and measurements for us. We make our assumptions and conclusions based on the best evidence. Your failure has always been in thinking your conclusion is the only possible correct one and give reason - it’s grounded In your version of science. (An outdated relic) and even if partially true would remain outside the scope here. 

A pantomath is a person who wants to know and knows everything.

The scientific method requires you to send your prediction of one of my posts to someone else before I post it. Good luck!

I hope at least my example involving a bookie helped you understand how when you combine a large number of random quantities, the randomness of their combination can be proportionately less.

I hope you (and others also now understand that randomness has only one serious established meaning (uncertainty in the prediction of an event) as found in any reputable text on the subject. I hope you also understand that determinism means a complete lack of randomness and that the question of whether the real world could be deterministic has been answered convincingly in the negative, firstly by the observation that quantum mechanics implied there could never be an underlying deterministic explanation and secondly, by the verification of the violation of Bell's inequality by a series of increasingly convincing experiments starting in the 1970s and continuing up to the last decade.

Of course, you can choose not to know any of that. Is there a word for such a person?

Done ! Although I’ll assume I missed a comma. Hence, your post will remain random.  🤟

 Large random quantities cancelling each other out is a known phenomenon with current thinking. 
Whether or not they occur randomly is the topic. Observe the behavior and draw your own conclusions. The concept is abstract. Measurements can be made. Interpretation of the results lead to conclusions. The conclusions are made by people- not science. This is the gross error of your thinking. 

We’ll be the master’s of the universe one day. But not until we understand and then learn to manage the quantum world. Obviously, impossible if events there are truly random. 

whatever happened to mindwalk ? - lol !

i luvd him...wish hed join in

Perhaps this to explain-

You show up everyday and your job is to count quantities. The issue becomes tedious with seemingly random amounts, doing all this counting. A device is invented. It’s results are verified, sure enough it reports match exactly all our own. 
Soon we rely on the device. See the world by it.  Laziness sets in. Think all is solved. After time it’s forgotten where it all began. 

No prob, hope you had a good time.

'I miss burning the incense when sippin my wine. Cat's, plants, tree's and views were mine. Had the remembrance, so I made the rhyme.' 

Thing is ... I don’t know of anyone taking E seriously except for a couple of lap dogs in his evolution thread. Not worth the trouble you’ve invested. People are more capable of rational thinking than perhaps you give credit for. E isn’t getting away with anything. His perspectives provide a good reminder of intellectual traps/pitfalls. A bevy of  academic information. Seldom on point. 
The OP is a non-participant. Some here post complete irrelevancy off topic. The few here seem to be talking to themselves, including myself. At least E has the intelligence to recognize good questions and chips in his dime. You say to know his character from the past. So why the sudden indignation? Perhaps because all the time in debate (which was never a true debate) is perceived as time wasted ?

I addressed a few of your insights. Think I expressed a few disagreements and since ignored.  What is quite evident is your narrow focus on convincing E the error of his ways. Any observer could perceive the fiasco as 50/50.  

I recall from “The Great Debaters” with Denzel Washington points are scored for convincing the jury. No attempt is made to persuade the opposing side.