I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice)
And as such we are always in the pursuit of more knowledge, not the completion of knowledge (as Asimov so properly and comprehensively explains in The Last Question).
But even if there is built in randomness, all the laws of physics still can apply -- wear and tear, different points of gravity having different effects on how things should work. Take a system and place it into another environment and it works differently.
Then, how we view and perceive the random results even have an effect on that randomness. The images you show, for example, to a colour-blind person, and then maybe viewed on a different monochrome, or a different resolution.
But you're right, our assumptions cannot even possibly comprehend new understandings and even new definitions of random.