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

your barking at the wrong tree

"The classical argument is that things like quantum effects are determined by hidden variables"

this argument was resolved long time ago..

"So far as I can see, Sillver is arguing for the possibility of determinism, so I thought it would be a good idea to point that out. He says randomness may not exist. OK, so I pointed out that would exclude free will too"

kinda. the possibility do exist, thats a fact. but as for herding cats.. i think that our understanding of determinism is very different than elrochs. i said that before, but im not sure if you noticed that.

Yes, if you mean the stuff I have been referring to that showed that QM could not be explained by local variables. And "the classical argument" is roughly the hypothesis proposed by Einstein and others that everything can be explained by some deterministic theory.

(Usually the word "hidden" is included, because they would have to be as yet undetected or even indetectable. But this became irrelevant when it was shown no such variables could ever suffice to explain the weirdness of QM).

yes, bell told us that a long time ago. but im not sure why you keep lecturing me about it.

Randomness being defined as something that can’t be predicted.  

All I can dooo is briefly shake the ole noggin. How trite. Such limited thinking leads exactly to this point. 

I will side with the spontaneous factor,  just not the mea culpa one.

Your statement makes sense, however I should like to dig deeper on the matter..

I believe that in time a randomness factor can be aligned with any spontaneous action taken. 

This can include individuals, collectives, the animal kingdom and so forth. Stats, everybody likes stats don't under estimate that.

And all it took was the effort to remove those damnable distractions out of my way that always seem to be there. 

I am sure the dictionary is suitably mortified at your feelings about one of its definitions.

Because it means there is a kind of randomness in the world that can never be explained away as being merely "apparent".

Determinism only has one relevant meaning: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. This is falsified by Bell test experiments. These cannot be explained by information (associated with a "cause") that is in the past of the observations.

"Determinism only has one relevant meaning: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."

that sound right. but than it wont match your own definition of determinism as you relate it to TR

What your so- called “causes” are about is nothing more than disguised search for - Reasons.

Since beginnings everything has been affecting everything else. Forces are in play as Gravity that certainly plays a role affecting all of matter and it’s behavior. I know better and easily understand where the position originates - a belief system built upon a premise that the universe was not created/designed. A simplistic and shallow mind set only comprehends if not one must be the other - resulting in a world view of things happening by chance. After all, the same people claim the BB happened by chance. This should finalize their point as nothing more needs explaining. 
The concept, the idea of true randomness has far greater consequences than physics. It is NOT defined by if an event can be predicted or not. That is so much double speak. Similarly it’s not about determinism either. Bad habit to assume the nature of the universe is related to whether or not it was designed. 

Elroch and Opti are bound up in the works of duality. If not predetermined must be random. If the world was not created it must have happened by chance. Origins all started with a beginning. Something either had a cause or not.

Easy to get stuck in the mud, endlessly spinning the wheels. Especially so since neither of the dualities expressed are descriptive of the real world. 

MustangMate, are you saying that the universe was neither created by design nor happened by chance? If so, then what?

LMAO 

Someone wants to have a serious discussion of randomness and begins with example of meeting a  certain girl  !!! Somebody please find me the straight jacket 🥃

If the question needs asking no answer will suffice, now can it? Once the mind has become closed as such, (an example the duality being discussed), of either/or - what then ? 

People here greatly misuse the terms affect the verb and effect the noun. When it’s understood everything is affecting everything else, has always done so and apparently will continue on.  One begins to understand randomness by maths, the only place it exists - in abstract thought. 
Open your eyes and what do observe?

I observe order. Nature continues on as I know it.
True randomness can only exist as a thing of abstraction. The universe is behaving as it always has.   

How can “causes” be tied to whether or not true randomness exists ? How far back in time are we to look? You”ll end up searching for Origins. The topic is grand in its place. It becomes trite here as it’s totally irrelevant to the topic. 
You two insist the topic is defined by predictability - something is random if it can’t be predicted becomes the only acceptable parley in your outdated and misguided texts. 

You can be as prickly and evasive as you want to be but mine was a legitimate question.  

Alternative ideas are plentiful. By asking the question as phrased- it’s being Assumed the universe has a beginning.  Firstly our ideas of origins will be different but I do not begin such conversation by accepting the assumed premise you made as true and then proceeding .