1) Is this a possibility? Simply put, not a relevant one. Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic. Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize. Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?" Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.
It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any), but because pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we deal with a true randomness or a seeming one...
So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)
Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy. I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random." Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation. But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power. Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner. It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.
"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind. These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.
Correction:
You are left to speculate. I am correct.
As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea
may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...
I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?
It is
self-apparent that random and non-random are abstract models. You can continue to ignore the obvious, or just simply accept what is right in front of you at all times. You can never get away from this.
It's as self-apparent and simple as recognizing your own existence. When you're thinking of what "random" and "non-random" are, those thoughts are models of those things. Period. Any word corresponds to a theory of that word, and we use these words -- which themselves are self-contained within a coherent, consistent language -- to describe what we perceive in a consistent way. This is so incredibly simple because it is self-evident at all times that absolutely everything real corresponds to, and interdependent with, its theory. Theories give rise to a coherent, consistent reality.
It's in front of your nose. It's...right...there.
Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing. Anything! Just one! Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!
Logic is a predicate for truth, NOT vice-versa. The only way something true exists is by way of a relational statement. The root word of rationale is "ratio," and truth ONLY exists inasmuch as sound, rational statements exist. It is logically self-apparent that no truth exists outside of logical statements. Therefore, what is "true" is a product of an understanding of mind set in ratio to what is being described as "true." True things exist only because they are inherently related to, and described by, mind according to the rules of logic.
I don't know how many ways I can try to explain something so incredibly simple and obvious. Again. It's. Right. There. This is knowable at a 100% level of confidence at all times.
To answer your final question, is demonstrable that 1) absolute truth exists, 2) absolute truth is knowable (i.e. we can be 100% certain that we have arrived at the best answer we can possibly hope to achieve), and thus 3) there is a correct answer.
