Ratchet Randomness

I truly do not understand randomness. People way smarter than I are convinced of the existence of randomness. Physicist friends like Hanna and Lia, and the great mathematician JUASCHIMIR are confident of the empirical and mathematical (respectively) existence of randomness. OKAY, but I´d like to understand; cause I don´t; and I don’t think anyone can.

There are some objections I have:

To say “random”, really means to say, something out of nothing. By saying that something is random, it means that it is without cause. If it were with cause then one could predict its outcome. Being without cause means spontaneity. Spontaneous means something from nothing. How is something coming from nothing?

To say “random”, really means to say, not adhering to natural orders (where physical laws apply). If a purple monster would appear (seemingly) out of nowhere and disappear again one might think that this was outer-worldly and/or supernatural. These terms actually refer to „not of this planet“ and „not adhering to natural orders“. I would disagree with both statements. It has to be of this world since it appeared in this world, and it has to adhere to natural orders because it appeared in the realm of natural orders. Thus it must have come from somewhere and went somewhere. This seemingly random (without cause or effect) event, is in fact not random because it happened in the real of natural orders (our world).

To say something is “random” is hybris. There is a difference in saying that something is random to us, or to say that something is in itself random. To say that something is truly random one not only says „I don't know the cause“, one adds „There is no world in which a cause can be found since there is none.“ That is the most arrogant thing I ever heard. This postulates that I can be certain that nothing can ever have explanatory value for natural behavior. To say that there is nothing to be known in this regard is to say that everything is known, and this regard is not in the realm of knowable. That to me is the definition of hybris.

To state this again:

A) x is random

B) Thus, I know x has no cause

C) To know that x has no cause is to know all causes and identifying x as not one of them

Result: to claim x is random is to say “I know all causes

The way I understand randomness and probability is: “We don’t know or we are not sure”. But that is very different from “It is not to be known, and something is probable.”

To me this informs the free will debate. I am a determinist and I think everything is cause and effect. Anyone defending the free will must also explain an action without causes. The same applies.