Coelho, you are indeed a very deep thinker. I enjoy reading your posts.

As for the coin tossing analogy, that's one I've thought about a bit too. My take on it is a flipped coin will have an equal opportunity to land on one of the two sides. The chances of it landing on a single side more than the other, especially consecutively, is obvious very slim. That is only because each time it is done the variables for each toss will most likely be different.

As far as we can observe, the coin also has a mass and shape that will diminish through wear and tear, oxidation, etc. Its change in an ideal environment will be negligible for testing the probabilities for what side it lands on unless repeated to the point of greatly wearing the coin down at which the variables can be compensated for the loss in mass or change in shape.

Now, suppose the coin can be tossed each time with closely matching variables: the position of the coin's starting point, the amount of energy put into the coin to make it fly into the air and flip over, the part of the coin that energy was directed at, mass of the coin, atmospheric pressure, temperature, turbulance, and the surface the coin is to land on (angle it lands, rebound).

Other variables that would be hard (or impossible) to control for affecting the coin would be things like the Coriolis effect, electromagnetic waves (unless in a shielded environment), quantum particles that bombard and pass through most objects, gravity waves, electron spin, and even our own thoughts. Those kinds of variables would not have a significant impact on the outcome for this kind of a test due to it's scope.

It would be very hard for an average human to replicate the test over and over to try and get the coin to land on a chosen side, but a very finely tuned machine could be built to replicate the variables so precisely that some variables would become more constant, thus increasing the chances to make the coin land on either side chosen.

You could pretty much compare it to a basketball being thrown into the hoop. Throwing the ball at the goal with random uncontrolled force each time will destroy your chances at making it go through... but carefully timed throws with the right angles and energy will increase your chances of it happening.

I've seen it being done with rolling some dice. Holding them a certain way in your hand, rolling them a specific way with the same force each time can increase the chances of what they land on.

It all comes down to just simple physics in the end, there's nothing random about physics as far as our perception is concerned. I believe most things are quantifiable, our lack of being able to measure or control something does not justify randomness.

Randomizing test variables on purpose will usually result in "random" outcomes. Doing it with controlled variables will increase chances of success or to prove something to be incorrect.

I'm starting to give up my belief in random events now. I didn't think I ever would, but these threads in which we've shared our thoughts are making me question my perceptions more. Ah, the quest for deterministic truth, it may never be found or fully understood, but I will continue to try to rebel against the idea that everything is somewhat "fixed".

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on things and being very thurough with your explanations.