I would say that the determinism or non-determinism doesn't really matter. It seems to me that determinism is a feature of the observer too. For example, roll

I would say that the determinism or non-determinism doesn't really matter. It seems to me that determinism is a feature of the observer too. For example, roll of dice is non-deterministic for a human being, even in perfectly deterministic universe. It's just too complicated to simulate, so it appears random, and we can pretty much declare it to be non-deterministic. And pseudo-random generators, purely idealized systems, can generate non-determinism from determinism. You can also have systems that do the opposite - that are itself based on non-determinism, but are in the effect deterministic. Classical computers use non-deterministic movement of electrons (or better say, they don't rely on their determinism), but can still produce repeatable (deterministic) results. So you can move away from determinism or non-determinism on lower level (like the level of elementary particles) by various methods of aggregation. Considering there is still about 20 orders of magnitude between the "size" of elementary particles and Planck length, I would dare say that reality may still switch between determinism and non-determinism several times beyond the what we know. Also, people may find this lecture by Dan Dennett interesting (which inspired the above argument): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxup7sxIUmg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxup7sxIUmg