If the boring sort, that wanna-be alphas argue endlessly about in Philosophy 507, then "no".
If the sort that real people need to have a sense of, to cope with life in the real world, then "yes". Given ~40 bytes of data about a black hole, its behavior can be predicted, exactly enough for ~all real-world purposes, and for millions of years into the future, by a pretty simple program running on a (say) old Z80 CPU. You can drop a billion empty beer cans into it, one by one, and if you match their trajectories then the outcomes will be ~identical. Humans, or even my sister's stupid pet dog, are nothing remotely resembling that predictable and deterministic.
I really like the idea of quantifying how deterministic a system is by the amount of data need to accurately (for reasonable values of accuracy) predict it's behavior. Objectional tests are terrific for bringing philosophers back into the realm of reason.
sed -I 's/are terrific for bringing philosophers back into/are a reasonable tactic for attempting to drag screaming, kicking, & biting philosophers back into/'
If the boring sort, that wanna-be alphas argue endlessly about in Philosophy 507, then "no".
If the sort that real people need to have a sense of, to cope with life in the real world, then "yes". Given ~40 bytes of data about a black hole, its behavior can be predicted, exactly enough for ~all real-world purposes, and for millions of years into the future, by a pretty simple program running on a (say) old Z80 CPU. You can drop a billion empty beer cans into it, one by one, and if you match their trajectories then the outcomes will be ~identical. Humans, or even my sister's stupid pet dog, are nothing remotely resembling that predictable and deterministic.