I recall a long time ago I had this conversation when I was in a computer science class. Well as many of you may know even when you use the randomize function in a programming language it's not actually random. There's a specific method the computer uses to choose a 'random' number. You can search wikipedia or something to see this for yourself. Anyhow, I see randomness as only theoretical, and it does not exist in reality. I ask anyone to post what they think is proof of true randomness. I'm not asking so that I can just try to give counterpoints, but because I really am interested to see what a community such as this can conceive. By the way anything such as thought patterns or quantum mechanics that aren't fully understood shouldn't really count. Although I'm not dismissing them entirely I think it's fruitless to debate them since in the end we will disagree, since the only real guiding light is opinion. [EDIT] Actually I did not even peruse the other threads here before posting this. If I had I would see there is already a thread for this topic exactly. I suppose if a moderator would do me the favor of moving this post into that thread It would be greatly appreciated. I'll try to refrain from such reckless posting in the future.
Dismissing quantum mechanics will make the question unanswerable. Randomness simply must have its roots at the quantum level. That's where we have to figure out whether the universe is deterministic--if indeed it can ever be known. This is, therefore, microcosmology, so your question should probably be on the Cosmology board.
ScribJellyDonut: If you insist on removing QM from the discussion I would be surprised if you could find a Physicist that would claim the world is not deterministic. I've seen Physicists (including Roger Penrose, if I recall correctly) make the case that the quantum elements of our brain are what grant us Free Will, removed from the shackles of algorithmic determinism. Personally, I think everything (including quantum behavior) is deterministic and "randomness" is a subjective term relative to an information set. Keep in mind that it's possible that QM could be deterministic whose behavior is unknowable to us, even in theory, which is why this discussion will ultimately come down to philosophical beliefs.
Newtonian mechanics is deterministic if you have perfect knowledge of everything. The universe is not Newtonian and even if it was, perfect knowledge doesn't exist. Randomness occurs even in the Newtonian world because of the lack of perfect knowledge. Qyuantum mechanics makes it very clear: The universe is either deterministic but has non-local cause-and-effect or has local cause-and-effect but is plagued with some inherently random elements. You pick. Most physicists would choose randomness over non-locality.
I think this is an interesting topic - are there any examples of true randomness in nature? How seeds blow or are scattered by a plant? If I took a handfull of bb's or something and threw them at the surface of a pond and we could somehow plot the impact point of each one, would that be a random pattern? Each bb would have a reason for following the path it did. Not sure how God, consciousness, good, and love fit in though.
Unfortunately, physicists no longer have the following choice. Experiments with entangled particles force the acceptance of non-locality. BTW: At an emotional level, I do not believe in the implications of experiments relating to entangled particles. To be consistent with the rational level of my mind, I have to accept the results of those experiments & the counter-intuitive conclusions based on them. Experiments relating to various quantum level processes seem to force the acceptance of randomness at that level. Since the Macro-World of our senses is based on quantum level phenomena, randomness at that level also seems to be forced upon us. Note that random processes can result in some deterministic appearing laws of physics. For example, the laws relating to pressure/temperature/volume of gases follow from assumptions of random behavior at the molecular level. Feynman said something like the following. The following are from a book (Quantum Reality) by Nick Herbert, who is a knowledgeable physicist engaged in serious work with applications of quantum theory. If Feynman is willing to accept a level of ignorance, why should those who are not genuises (such as you & I) not be willing to also accept that quantum theory is counter-intuitive & basically cannot be understood by us. BTW: For many years, Herbert believed in a disturbance model of particle reality, which assumes that a particle has a precise position & momentum. It further assumes that our attempts to measure the values interferes with those values. This views the Uncertainty Principle as being due to limitations of measurement technology. Herbert now considers the disturbance model to be erroneous & accepts the view that quantum level entities cannot have both a precise position & a precise momentum at the same time. If a person (like Herbert) with a graduate degree in Quantum Theory & years of work in the field can have an erroneous view, how can people (like you & I) consider our views valid when they are incompatible with Quantum Theory?
