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

That’s the issue with these fellows here. The topic is abstract and philosophical. They try to make it into their definitions and provide answers claiming truth. All fluff with no substance. 

Opti - you need learn something. I disagree with your perspectives. The views are misguided. But it is YOU who is doing the insulting here by repeatedly saying I lack any intelligence. Perhaps if you grew up a tad you’d learn a thing or two. 
Your version of what the topic is about us strictly in line with Elroch. Differing conclusions at times but the same approach. This view is different than intended by the OP as he has repeatedly stated. 

To know if true randomness exists it takes far more inquiry than knowing if events were predictable. That issue is sticky enough as it is but ask yourself, is it relevant to the question- do events happen, come into existence, change course mid- stream unaffected by any previous events?

The question regards the nature of the universe and Not our ability to make accurate predictions or find causes for events ( which is just another way of saying Reasons 

Insisting someone answer a question (when they fail to realize it’s based on faulty premise)  is quite childish, and  this coming from a champion debater to boot ! Posing a question after previously citing the refutation is stuff made at the sand box on around kindergarten age. 

The question of true randomness is really quite encompassing and open for a wide range of discussion. It certainly should not be based solely on our ability to predict nature. Limiting discussion to consider this being exclusive is for the brain dead. Unfortunately a couple here insist on placing their definition on the OP’s thereby controlling all discussion. Sad state of affairs really, but is not random at all!

Come  on ! Ask a question about randomness and don’t ask me about finding that special girl

Ask is the Structure of the Cosmos random? Now that can be related too. 

Filters work best used. Some think a filter must be maintained in a like new condition, cleaned often, to be made like new. Not so. Filters work best with Patina. With age. A used filter, when properly cared for, is superior to the factory model. 
The guy living isolated on an Island knows more about randomness than any of us. 
You may know the meaning of life but it’s trivial if someone is asking how to boil water. 

First, I'm not assuming any premise as true. Secondly, I used your words from a previous post above: 

"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."

This led to my question as to your viewpoint, since obviously you don't agree with either of these premises. I have no dog in this fight. I'm genuinely interested in the discussion and am trying to get a grip on everyone's perspective.  If it is impossible for you to articulate, I understand, but throwing out cryptic remarks while making snarky comments about everyone else's posts is counter productive.

My best articulation. 
Ain’t Maths grand ?  Something that can predict it’s own unpredictability is but a minds toy. 

The gist of I t wolfbird is that other viewpoints exist. Not that mine specifically is anything special. Others make statement theirs is the only light, that things must be either/or. 
Whether or not is really more a function of time. 
Want to discuss observation of the real world? Do things happen randomly? Great discussion. Soon as you tell me this is random/ this is not - based on definitions of predictability it’s time for the evening martini. 
Im not being evasive Wolfbird. One explanation, which has many interpretations is that the universe has always existed - Time immortal. Make such suggestion and the blood hounds come out barking. Anyway, beware of those on soap boxes. Suggest anything other than the status quo and be instantly labeled, called unintelligent. We observe such stuff everywhere. It’s not random in the least !

Ain’t Maths grand ?  Something that can predict it’s own unpredictability is but a minds toy. 

MM, one a my very deepest feelings in the whole wide world is that wut we think weve found in our U is gonna end up being a illusion. and wut our so-called smartest math rascals have tried to do is take the unsuspecting s/w. and that place is filled w/ romantic fantasy.

but i gettit ! theyre just trying to express themselves. and im cool w/ that. theyre just trying to show everyone who they really are inside. way dn deep (arent we all ?) and so they go 4ward and manipulate math to bring out that potential orb for ppl. iows, theyre tryn2show u that math understands cosmology. bullsh*t ! wut they end up doing is showing u that their so-called nature is mirroring their math ! and thats the illusion. its kinda hilarious donchu feel ?   :: ))

and so ill probly feel this way 4da the rest a my life. and really ? idt i want a/t more til the day i die. i believe in innatism and how it can phophesize wuts in front a us. is this both a gift and a curse ? not sure. but, regarding this. its all much more D than FW 4me.

Where would it leave us if one day it’s proven the BB Theory to be true in regards to the topic here? (true randomness)

Nowhere. We’d be no closer to understanding if true randomness exists as before. You see it’s quite clear some have already made conclusion on the existence of TR without any 1st hand knowledge- just some abstract ideas. A critical error in thinking. Questions then get asked demanding answers grounded in the assumptions. Foolish stuff. 

@Lola - you’d think others would get this stuff. 

The illusion part ? It’s not true. Illusions are easy, simplistic by nature. The Big U is not easy by nature and I’d think impossible to duplicate. An illusion suggests a 2nd reality does it not ?

Nobody ever did anything useful with maths. Philosophy on the other hand is what got men to the moon and allowed them to make the chips in your mobile phone.

[irony alert]

Like that tune birdie.. Some 'individuals' still don't understand that when 'others' seem to be offline, there actually in stealth mode doing background. Yet they sit and wait, watching for that spark of acceptance that is a ruse..

https://youtu.be/yJbmXvBJhCs

Opti -   I have expressed alternative viewpoints for ages. Don’t start in now presenting otherwise.

True randomness does not exist for a simple reason. Everything is affected by everything else. Separate causes do not exist. Observation tell us the universe is ordered. You disagree but stop with these lies about me just trolling. You refuses to discuss any view other than your own,  have gone  off on your insulting and childish tantrums. 
You and Elroch have the same core beliefs. I know your world view. Our world views are established well before most academic pursuit. Claim gets made 1st comes the science followed by creating  a world view. I know better.  You have expressed it in many terms but it’s all the same. Mine is different. There is no need or point  to your constantly trying to engage. I know the result. Highly predictable so I simply choose not to respond to faulty premises. I hold no illusions that you’ll ever truly understand the topic. And know what ? I make no claim to fully grasp what true randomness is. Unlike yourself who has defined and explained the entire question dismissive of others. 
Independent Origination is a concept that better explains the nature of things. I have expressed the idea in many occasion. Most likely you are in the dark as never a single response except for - he’s trolling. Typical for those when confronted with ideas that are challenging. 

Perhaps difficult to understand - 

Finding and labeling a cause for an event does not reveal anything about the question of whether or not true randomness exists. 
It addresses only the surface - that of randomness occurring in the physical world as matter is measured/quantified.

 Randomness and true randomness quite different, at least from my view. True randomness is philosophical and asks far deeper questions- 

such as the events themselves. You may know the cause or origin. But so ? I ask because any origin/cause is responsible for events being either! We can’t assume that by knowing a cause for events the events become deterministic in nature.

opti: "Previously you have agreed with me when I tried to show that randomness and true randomness are the same thing. That is because actually they're both abstract ideas and they define similarly."

it was me that agreed with you. but that was only for the purpose of definition. its kinda hard to explain.. just to try.. if TR does not exist.. you can still get apparent randomness, but it wont change a thing about the nature of our world, if this make sense. 

"The problem I had with MustangMate is that he only considered his ideas but he didn't express them, so it was impossible to know what he thought, if he thought anything. And then all of a sudden you find yourself being attacked and as far as you were concerned, he'd just agreed to what he was attacking, and it didn't come across that he was just criticising ideas. When a person makes it clear he is attacking the person who is kind or honest enough to share his ideas, it just looks stupid."

you sound as innocent as elroch.. lol

I thought what I wrote was quite good but it may have been too difficult. OptI

So it will be the old too difficult to understand ploy ! You confuse in agreement with and understanding. Yep, the day of the week thingy was so complicated it just flew over my head alright. 

helicopter be like brrr