"I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that 'immediate certainty,' as well as 'absolute knowledge' and the 'thing in itself,' involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words!" [Nietzsche]
In reality, #determinism would require a complete analysis of an event, before taking action regarding it. It only describes the event in itself. Why you or I impart some kind of "truth" to an event? How is any event contextualised by its observer? Did the event actually occur? How much of what is related about the event, "real"? [identical to all observers] How much of our decision about acting [or the inaction relating to an event] is objective, and how much is subjective? All we can really postulate is an average expression, of any number of witnesses, to any given event. The "truth" of the event, might not be apparent to any of those witnesses. It's unlikely that 2 of any given number of observers, will relate exactly the same characteristics to the event in question.
