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

he is afraid to be wrong and learn something new.

there is no room in his skull for humility.

it’s full.

I am starting to think that is true.

probably a bad childhood experience, somewhere in the future.

From where I was born, we could see the IOM after walking half a mile towards the coast. On a good day we could see Ireland, IOM and Galloway. And hear radio Caroline!!!!

A truly random event is one that remains unpredictable even given all of the information accessible to points in space-time not in the future of the event.

(This is the most demanding condition I could come up with and is what I described twice. I was much more verbose in both cases, trying to make the meaning clear. I don't know how successful I was).>>

It's ambiguous. It falls apart after "accessible". I also pointed out that what you wrote at that time was self-referential and that's when you started your personal attacks.

I think you meant to say something like "there is no possible information which may be accessible before a truly random event, which can be used to predict the event."

You really need to learn to focus better, and stop blaming others all the time when you get confused.

Ambiguity is something that can be resolved. While it may have already been resolved in the earlier much longer posts, do specify exactly which term is unclear to you, so that we can fix that.

I have to be clear though: it is definitely not self-referential. This is simple to check: there is only the one mention of the novel concept "truly random", and none of the other terms (all of which are standard and older) are defined by others in terms of this non-standard one). That should put that to bed.

If you want to learn something about the subject of this forum, read Scarani's article (which I actually only found for the first time yesterday as a result of @Sillver1) and you may see how it relates to my posts. It is aimed at physicists, but it should be accessible to anyone who knows about such things as Bell's inequality. If not, there are still parts of it and conclusions which should be relevant.

i cant believe its today

what were adams first words ?

“ah! Eve, i believe”.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle has nothing to say about true randomness. Not being able to measure velocity and position is a function of Time. Time is not singular points but rather as a blanket, making any such observation impossible. Such uncertainty does not suggest  randomness exists. 

Much to the dismay of Elroch, science can not provide answer. Now, if he wants to say “based on the observations and measurements he concludes “ ... all well and good. People make conclusions, evaluations. Unfortunately for him, having all the answers is not such a good thing ! Making claim ”Science” can provide us with the single correct evaluation sounds like a Guru from days old. 

at least the ones at Woodstock could be trusted.

Heisenberg knew he couldn’t be too sure about anything.

The idea that uncertainty increases with time is false. It is based on the assumption that randomness exists. With greater time it’s concluded a greater chance for uncertainty to appear. In the real world, events are happening as they be and are not influenced by any future time frame. 
The principle is purely mathematical. Adding any desired variable makes for wonderful conclusions. Truth is, any value for uncertainty is a constant and any given point in time. 

Einstein famously guessed similarly, expressed in his famous utterance "God doesn't gamble" (usually loosely translated as "play dice") by which he meant that he thought the Universe was deterministic. Quantum mechanics implied the Univere was not deterministic, and that there was randomness, so he wished to prove it wrong. But he didn't just guess, he and Podolsky and Rosen came up with a way to prove it wrong, the so-called EPR paradox, about a weird prediction referred to as "spooky action at a distance". Later John Bell made this more precise by finding how to check the property quantitatively, and eventually it was possible to do experiments, starting with Alain Aspect in the 1970s.

The result has been that all the experiments confirm quantum mechanics, specifically the violation of Bell's inequality, the existence of "spooky action at a distance" and the consequent existence of a kind of irreducible randomness in behaviour that can never be removed by any improved information.

I am sorry if anyone is deeply offended by me knowing this part of the history of physics - i.e. our knowledge of how the world behaves - and maybe is particularly offended by the fact that it answered the question posed in this forum's title, finally, in the last century, before it was asked here (though the experiments get better and better over time, closing more of what are called "loopholes", that are ways very unlikely hidden behaviour could invalidate the results). Anyone who feels like that about me passing on the facts might do well to study the history themselves and try to understand it. If they do, they should come to the same conclusions. Google should lead you to a wealth of information. Indeed, this would be a better way to learn about it.

@Optimissed's contributions led me to an improved, simplified definition of the most extreme randomness that exists in our Universe:

A truly random event is one that is unpredictable from all points in space-time not in the future of the event.

Fine, everybody has their own definition of randomness. Great work people, that's thinking. Now let's see you, all of you give simple real life examples of your definition(s). I'll start by restating what I said before.. There are human examples of randomness, and the non human examples of randomness. (Right or wrong put em out there) Two non human examples to start..

Leaves from a tree falling to the ground.

Snowflakes falling to the ground.

Right or wrong they both seem quite random to me. Real world simple examples seem to be avoided here. I wonder what a psychologist would say about that. 

To a physicist, observing whether a photon is vertically polarised is simpler! It can be analysed in full detail in a brief paper. By contrast modelling the randomness in the atmosphere and the structure of a snowflake is enormously complicated. You need to somehow separate the predictable part of its behaviour from the unpredictable part.

The varied structure of snowflakes is the subject of a surprisingly large amount of research. For example, there is a book of over 500 pages just on the physics of snowflakes, by the subject's most devoted researcher: 

Snow Crystals - Kenneth G. Libbrecht

Yeah, I figured it wasn't as simple as that. Meaning the given wind currents at said time. Are we to assume that wind currents are also orcastrated? If so, then the decent is not random.?

(Nice PDF by the way. Nothing like some light reading.)

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle has nothing to say about true randomness.

no. but theres some copenhagen deduction going on there...they say.