Again, if all you want to talk about is what can be perceived as being part of a pattern or not, then you limit yourself to not talking about reality but merely talking about how we may or may not perceive reality. Psychology and epistemology are all fine and interesting, but I am more concerned with ontology here. To talk about “true randomness” we must get beyond the level of only discussing our perceptions, what we might or might not be able to distinguish against a backdrop of meaning or lack of meaning. For one thing, we would need to get into the reasons why those perceptual limitations exist, and then talk more about why those reasons themselves obtain. With respect to truth and reality itself, beyond any mere perception or possible perception of it. That would require logic and ontological philosophy, which could happily vector itself into the problem via properly phenomenological routes.