iKotomi
[10] Knight
A reaction in the colloquial sense is just an action. A reaction in the sense that Kingace invoked draws from the wording of Newton's 3rd law which is the definition I noted.A RE-action is an action. Your not disproving anything King Ace said with this statement. Reactions to stimuli go beyond the initial "pushing back" and actually completely affect present and future of their environment, hence what King ace was saying about the "Domino effect" or the "Butterfly effect". One action leads to a re-action which leads to a re-action to that action and so on.
This paragraph makes no sense. You accepted the fact that the coin toss is not random but actually based on the conditions the coin was exposed to pre-toss and while in motion, Then you just go back to saying that this randomness truly is random anyway???. Just because the amount of variables is virtually infinite and calculating it precisely is IMPOSSIBLE on a human scale does not make it truly random.
I mentioned the true randomness of the coin flip as a side note. Under classical understanding, the flip is determined. However, quantum mechanics does claim that particle behavior is random. When you get to very large bodies moving slowly like coins, the probability of things behaving not classically is not zero, but extremely small. Delving deeply into quantum physics wasn't particularly necessary, but I put it out there as something to consider. Even then, the behavior of the coin is more or less fixed, in that the probability distribution is quite defined.
It is impossible to imagine a truly fair coin toss because there isn't and never will be such a thing. You might as well say lets imagine that in a universe with different laws and rules a coin was tossed and its result was completely variable. Ya I guess I can imagine it but in no way does it relate to my reality or this argument. The concept of true randomness as stated by KingAce does not entertain possibilities within a certain domain, because the existence of such certain domain contradicts the idea in itself. You cant have TRUE randomness if you already know what the possible results are.
There have never been unicorns, nor will there ever be unicorns. Yet I can imagine a unicorn. If you can't imagine unicorns or perfectly random coins, then I don't know what to say.
The toss of a perfectly random coin is truly random if there is a 50% chance of it landing heads, and a 50% chance of it landing tails. You can also say that it can randomly turn into a unicorn. But the probability of that in our distribution is zero, so we don't really talk about that case. Saying that coin tosses are actually determined doesn't mean we can't understand randomness.
Randomness only makes sense with respect to a probability distribution. Why should a person assume a distribution where a coin has a non-zero chance of turning into a unicorn over a distribution where a coin has a zero chance just because he is an atheist? Both distributions can be "truly random." Just because one distribution has a non-zero chance of X event happening doesn't make it more truly random.
The point of my post, anyways, was to just set things straight about science that KingAce is wrongly using to advance his argument. If you don't understand the premises you are arguing on, it's probable that you don't really understand whether your argument is a good one in the first place.