Logic of chance

[DD_8630]

The problem we are debating here is unanimously recognized as a controversial one, so I do not understand in the name of whom you assume the role as a representative of "the entire community of scientists and philosophers"?

There is no 'role representative', insofar as every member of the community says the same thing.

We really disagree about terminology but you did not disprove the essential point of my view that most of laws of nature are governed by both random and determinism each of them acting in certain limits.
Now, you looked a little haughty on quotations of terminology which I coppied from the Wikipwedia so I went seeking for help to the more "noble" Britannica.
Here is what I found:

1) Main Entry: in·de·ter·mi·nate
Pronunciation: \ˌin-di-ˈtərm-nət, -ˈtər-mə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English indeterminat, from Late Latin indeterminatus, from Latin in- + determinatus, past participle of determinare to determine
Date: 14th century
1 a: not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague b: not known in advance c: not leading to a definite end or result
2: having an infinite number of solutions <a system of indeterminate equations>
3: being one of the seven undefined mathematical expressions
4: characterized by sequential flowering from the lateral or basal buds to the central or uppermost buds ; also : characterized by growth in which the main stem continues to elongate indefinitely without being limited by a terminal inflorescence — compare 4

So what we see here is that "indeterminate" is a notion not forcible connected to quantum theory or to the universe but also to the ordinary technical world.

On the contrary, in the context of this discussion, the quantum mechanical definition is the pertinent one. I fully understand that words have multiple definitions, but only one definition applies at any one time (save for innuendo or double entendre).

The points 2 and 3 underline just what I have intuitively said that when you perform a measurement based on a law of physics,and you are for instance increasing the accuracy of the measurement you'll get to a point where you have an infinite number of results depending upon a system of indefinite equations, meaning that you have entered the indeterminate part of this law.
This will not be a problem of aproximation but a problem of practical randomness.

Again, you are talking about something entirely different than me. We are discussing whether the universe is actually determinable (i.e., capable of prediction with unlimited accuracy), rather than just experimentally measurable.

One cannot deny the fact that the indefinite temperature of physical objects is a subproduct of the second law of thermodynamics.
So each law where temperature is a part of it is intrinsically indetereminated.That's just a typical problem (one of many others) of weather forecasting.
The same aplies to the most basic law of Ohm as I have mentioned in a previous reply.

Again, you are conflating various definitions of 'indeterminate' (in this case, those of philosophy and chaos theory).

Another interesting definition of the Britannica is that of "Chaos":

chaos theory
mathematics and mechanics
Main
in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws. A more accurate term, “deterministic chaos,” suggests a paradox because it connects two notions that are familiar and commonly regarded as incompatible. The first is that of randomness or unpredictability, as in the trajectory of a molecule in a gas or in the voting choice of a particular individual from out of a population. In conventional analyses, randomness was considered more apparent than real, arising from ignorance of the many causes at work. In other words, it was commonly believed that the world is unpredictable because it is complicated. The second notion is that of deterministic motion, as that of a pendulum or a planet, which has been accepted since the time of Isaac Newton as exemplifying the success of science in rendering predictable that which is initially complex.

Voila, the "deterministic chaos" connects two apparently incompatible notions :random and determinism.
So it is no more a terminology expressed by me on the base of an engineering technical intuition but one collected from the high Britannica.

Again, you are conflating two definitions. That does not an argument make.