An unpopular opinion: things may be truly random, but we cannot prove it. Quantum mechanics is spooky. Most physicists accept the , which proposes that physical systems do not have definite properties until they're forced to. That is, the universe is a forest whose trees make no sounds. Even weirder, these trees are not trees, they're probabilities -- probabilitress. Probabilitrees fall when they're "observed". When probabilitrees fall, they become normal old logs. The Copenhagen Interpretation seems sound, however many physicists take it to illogical extremes. Born and Heisenberg stated they "consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose fundamental physical and mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification". In other words, the community "proven" there are no . <...>. "Random" is defined as something lacking a pattern or principle. Suppose we have a box that randomly vibrates. The box is epistemologically random because we can't see its underlying principle. There could be a leprechan pulling a wire, or a tiny elephant running around. The box is ontologically random if it has no patterns or principles to explain its behavior. That there are no leprechans or elephants, just literal randomness. Physicists believe that they've hit theoretical rock bottom -- ontological randomness. They say that the universe is made of boxes that are . But reme