Kedaman: From a previous post of yours
Randomness could be defined as unpredictability, a subjective concept. Objectively that would mean that randomness is an illusion. From case to case, if something isn't predictable, then you might call it random but the effect is the same as if it was, but that doesn't make it definite.
I cannot comment on the part of the above which I bolded because I just do not understand what you are trying to say.

In general, I do not understand many of your views. It might be due to our having fundamentally different world views. Many of your posts are clear, and I have no doubt that you are intelligent and knowledgable in many areas.

Yes, randomness could be defined as unpredictability, but it is not defined that way, except perhaps as one part of a dictionary definition. Predictability is not a central issue in and is hardly mentioned by the literature of probability and statistics.

The term random without a context is almost meaningless jargon. It is applied to data which corresponds to formally defined statistical distributions such as Poisson, binomial, uniform, Chi-Square, et cetera. Without the context of those distributions and the pertinent mathematics, the term is almost meaningless.

You seem to have some misgivings about so called random processes and statistical mathematics which I do not understand.

The mathematics of statistics and probability theory are as well founded as the mathematics of differential equations. If you quarrel with the mathematics, you are attacking formal logic, which is behind almost every mathematical discipline.

It is known that certain measurable phenomena are accurately modeled by the mathematics of statistics and probability. If you want to argue that the phenomena are illusions, that is a philosophical issue. If you want to argue that the mathematics does a bad job of modeling the phenomena, you are wrong, or perhaps unwilling to accept some well established methods of logic and science. If you want to claim that future developments will show that current beliefs are fundamentally flawed, you are being more subjective that the people (like me) who accept current science at face value.

If I were unwilling to accept current science at face value, I would find it difficult to trust my computer, my auto, the bridges I cross, all of the gadgets of modern technology. My belief in science and disbelief in various forms of nonsense might be a very subjective view of the world, but it seems to work for me.