>>14382396>You only say there "is no way" because that's our understanding as of now.You misunderstood what I was saying. It's not a matter of not understanding quantum interactions well enough, we already know all we need to know about quantum mechanics to draw the conclusion that accurate prediction is impossible.
When a quantum event happens that could have the outcome X or Y, both X and Y will happen in different branches of the multiverse. In one branch you will see X happen and in another branch you will see Y happen. So before the branching, it's strictly impossible to accurately predict whether you will see X or Y will happen. If you predict X, you'll be right in one branch and wrong in the other, and vice versa if you predict Y. So by definition you can't accurately predict what will happen: any prediction will be right in some branches and wrong in other branches, so one of the branches of "you" will inevitably find that their prediction was incorrect. No amount of understanding of quantum mechanics will let us make this prediction more accurately. Accurate prediction of these kind of events is impossible by definition.
To be clear, the evolution of the branching multiverse is entirely deterministic, and in that sense you could say there is no "true randomness". I'm not saying that god plays dice. But from the perspective of an observer living inside the multiverse, there are events that are fundamentally unpredictable because you, as an observer, also branch, and will experience different things in different branches. And, as you say, if we find that there is no "true randomness" under some particular definition, we might as well change our definition to include whatever actually exists that is closest to truly random. But the quantum phenomena of branching deserves that status, not PRNGs that are just difficult to predict because of computational limitations. PRNGs really are just "pseudo"-randomness, compared to quantum randomness.
