I am not sure what kind of argument you would like, you are trying to redefine the word 'deterministic'. My argument is that it does not work like that. Just because we cannot predict something does NOT mean that it is not deterministic. Even if it is physically impossible to predict it for anyone it still can be deterministic. That's just how this concept works. In practice this means nothing, so I think we can end this debate because you are surely not convincing me and I doubt I can convince you:)

I am interested, what is the definition of determinism that you are using?

If it "means nothing in practice", and can be true/not true regardless of whether it is possible (even in theory) to test it - then I assume that it is unrelated to science and you are using it in a philosophical sense?

> Can you provide some logic against that argument?

Turing machines are deterministic. Enumerating all Turing machines is deterministic. Whether any given Turing machine will terminate is unpredictable (the Halting problem).

Unpredictability does not entail nondeterminism, although distinguishing the two is not necessarily always possible.

But turing machines are theoretical concepts. The physical processors we have - are only physical approximations of a theoretical concepts - and if the argument was made for the view of "determinism" that I outlined - it would be about the physical processor, the physical world itself.

Paraphrasing, the theoretical image of an atom, as well as the set of atoms and other particles - is perfectly deterministic. But the chaos theory talks about the real world, not the theoretical framework.

The concept of determinism has no physical limits. Don't try to redefine standard terminology.

The concept has no limits, true. The physical world does.