The constraints of which universe's dynamics depends,  are numerous, nevertheless it's not necessary to continue to do their enumeration for giving more credibility to our speech.
Naturally, these constraints don’t result from systematic coincidences nor of an " unfortunate do-it-yourself ", and the scientific theories never will express their primordial causes.

For that, and with regard to determinism, normality and the freedom degrees, even, hazard that we can associate,
we must analyze the phenomena with an open mind and an extreme semantic rigour.
The physical and philosophical theories, often "hawked" by masters too imbued of their knowledges, then can be read with new lightings.
So :

"To always partial determinism …, are associated narrowly usage and validity domain of the scientific law, on which there is no debate." (cf. J. Ullmo - The modern scientific Thought).
It’s true, even, we shall say that there is never debates with regard to what the universal laws really represent, and presuppose.
And however, it is clear that these do not manage the universe but are only the expressions (formalizations) of unchanging behaviors and of possible evolutions,
of behaviors and evolutions which are resulting of potentialities actualizations (of materializations to become realities), and thus, are fruits of physical activities and of transcendent activities.

Another example,
"All events, even those on account of their insignifiance which do not seem to follow the great laws of the nature, are a continuation as needful as the revolutions of the sun.
In ignorance of the ties which unite such events to the entire system of the universe, they have been recognized as objects of final causes or of the hazard, according as they occur and are repeated with regularity, or without order,
but these imaginary causes have been gradually receded with the bounds of our knowledges and disappear entirely in front of sane philosophy, which sees in them only the expression of our ignorance of the true causes." (cf. Pierre-Simon Laplace - Analytic theory of probabilities - Introduction, volume 7).

Yes, as numerous scientists, we make easily to depend dynamics of the universe, this ceaseless creation, for ever unfinished, on more or less final causes with whom we associate influences of the hazard and aleatory processes,
this hazard, although interpreted of diverse manners :
-  chance as unforeseen,
-  aleatory when there are some possible expressions of the phenomena by calculation, notably of probabilities,
-  contingent with alternative " can occur or not ",
which is expressing smallness of our conscious world's understanding.

With regard to our small capacity to understand the world, let's quote the cat's problem, imagined in 1935 by Erwin Schrödinger (1887 - 1961), one founder of the quantum mechanics.
Suppose a cat who is in a box containing a device that kills it, as soon as disintegration of a radioactive nucleus begins.
As beginning of this disintegration can't be specified with experimental means, but predicted only by a probability calculation, it is only by opening box that we can know if cat died or alive.

Nevertheless, let’s beware to erroneous philosophical interpretations which flowered then ; this uncertainty does not concern "physical realism" of the things (fact that events are real).
For us, that this cat could be at the same moment, dead and alive, is a conjecture among the ideas, the concepts, …, the anticipations, …, which "furnish" the abstraction's domain,
a domain that we can recognize as singular expression of an inaccessible world by experiment : the transcendent world of the potentialities and  virtualities.

Regrettably, this mysterious world associated with the reality and named by our care : spacimplicatio,
this world of universal character because of its transcendent order, and within which our spiritual life dwells, 
is ignored by the philosophers and theologians !

As for the creative entity implicated in the universe,
who "within us", ceaselessly must work and research, without be able to annihilate constraints and abnormalities (non-normalities),
who "by" intermediary of the I (ego, subject, spirit) in whom she recognizes herself, is revealing limits of her liberty and powers, acknowledging thus that she is not omnipotent although of divine nature,
who dares to speak about her ?,
who will dare to speak about her ?


Paul  Moyne