Adder wrote: Causal impacts (footprints) might exceed our capacity to perceive them, therefore have an 'appearance' of non-determinism.
No, not really. Sure, many statistical models are borne of some degree of ignorance about every microscopic state that contributes to the whole, but in the end there seems to be a degree of genuine non-determinism at the root of it all as well. It appears that no matter how many loopholes we close where nature might be hiding hidden variables outside our view/perception, it still keeps appearing non-deterministic.
A first technically "loophole free" Bell test
was published in 2015. As the paper states, pretty much the only way to save notions of determinism at this point is to suppose a total, global predestination that is well beyond the scope of any test that
could be performed, even in principle. So the only way to save determinism from falsification is to... make it unfalsifiable. Anything weaker pretty much has been falsified at this point.
Aside from that, causality is itself a rather odd intuition to have to begin with. If correlation does not imply causation, and we only ever see correlations, why would we assume there is any such thing as causation? Indeed, what on earth do we even mean by it, anyway? When we say "event X causes/caused event Y", what identifiable relation between the two are we actually asserting and what can we test our assertion against to see if it yields any use by accurately reflecting any states of affairs?
Bear in mind, these questions are not new ones, produced by this young mysterious world of the super-tiny. David Hume voiced pretty much the same critique against causality as a word that can be said to have an empirical correlate back in 1739 and 1748 already.
