I take "random" just being a description of the predictor, that they lack sufficient information to make a determinate prediction. ie., I take probability to b

I take "random" just being a description of the predictor, that they lack sufficient information to make a determinate prediction. ie., I take probability to be only an epistemic description of confidence given information. And therefore randomness just a lack. A physical system may be "ontologically random" in the sense that there is no info its possible to obtain to make a determinate prediction -- but that isn't randomness (which is epistemic). That's "physical informationlessness" which is an (alleged) feature of a physical system that leads to n "inevitable randomness" in our predictions of it.