I know what you've said about proof/disproof, it's been said over and over again. I am unsure as to your point with maths. Isn't it true that we could not have achieved anywhere near the level of understanding of the world around us without mathematics? (That's a genuine question.)

I think you really have to accept maths (assume it's valid) before you start to accept any ideas about the randomness or otherwise of the universe.

Do you know Fermat's Last Theorem? It's a theorem (theorem means proven theory I think) that states that, for a right-angled triangle, the length of the hypotenuse to a power X is equal to the sum of the lengths raised to the same power X of the other two sides, if and only if X = 2. This was a theorem which Fermat proved to himself, or that's what it says in his notes anyway - his proof was never found, and which had baffled mathematicians until a few years ago when some guy figured it all out and proved it. That may sound simple enough but to prove that A^X + B^X = C^X is untrue for any value of X other than 2 is no mean feat. You can't just start at 3 and work your way up because you've always got an infinite number of values of X left. Somehow he proved it (in fact he proved it using modern-day techniques that Fermat couldn't have used, so Fermat's own proof is still a mystery). Somehow he proved a lack of any other possibility, out of an infinite number of possibilities.

Now that is obviously all based on maths, but maths is so closely tied in with modern-day physics that I don't think you can really question its validity without questioning the validity of any physics we have ever known.

I understand your logic in saying "how do you know that you won't find a pattern?" because it has run through my own mind, and I think you've said it before a few times too. Perhaps, though, it is possible to know that there is no pattern, just as Fermat and his latter-day follower proved that no other combination would work for the Pythagorean theorem. I don't understand all the maths involved but I am open to the possibility that it can be proven that a process has no pattern.

Perhaps this will theory will come to change in the future, but it seems unusual for you not to entertain the possibility that it can be proven that something is random when so many people seem to have so much evidence. From the things you have said on this forum previously, I would have expected you to embrace the new ideas because the evidence backs them up (well I don't really understand quantum randomness so I'm assuming by the massive following QR has that it has a lot of supporting evidence) and carry on believing in it (this is what you have said you do when you find something with good evidence) until something more likely comes along.

I get the impression that you think you are providing some kind of evidence against randomness when you speak of huge numbers of microscopic deterministic events giving the illusion of randomness a la complexity theory, but this is ground that was covered back in Einstein's time. Remember Einstein's 'hidden variables'? He fought desperately against the idea of randomness, giving that famous quote "God does not play dice!" but his research, however biased, only served to strengthen the argument for randomness. I'm not saying that because Einstein couldn't disprove it nobody can, I'm just stressing how difficult some of the evidence must be to argue with if even a bitterly determined Einstein could only fuel the fires of quantum randomness.

Perhaps in time it will all be shown to be folly, but it seems unlikely that that will be happening any time soon, so we ought to go with the best guess. That seems to me to be randomness.

That's it I'm off my soapbox now Carry on.