Hivechess season 8 final result: @sawko wins his 4th title

What an interesting discussion here!
I actually think too that our free will is an illusion and a social concept so that communities can work better together (like religion is also such a concept). It comes down to the question "What is you?" If only the part of you that has this remnant free will due to the Brown´s molecular movement (or some subatomic stochastic processes) is the one to "choose" then it might be a free will technically, but not in common sense.
Another explanation is the matrix theory which I find quite interesting. Is it so unlikely that in a far future whole planets or moons could be turned into gigantic computers who run such simulations? Is it not plausible that our ancestors would do such research in lack of physical objects? It could be routine research in a subject called "virtual archeology". Maybe in parallel to our simulation another one is running where e.g. Hitler has won the WW2 or where the exploding powder or the lightbulb were never invented?

No political parties, no polititcians, only projects that can be voted for or against (on an immutable blockchain).

I can't stand politicians either, I'm always telling that to my family :D It's hard to imagine a society without political institutions, though, at least from the conventional view of politics. I have heard some alternative views coming out of anarchism as a doctrine of political philosophy. The idea of rejecting political institutions is often associated with left-wing thinking, where political power is typically seen as domination, as something bad. But there are also right-wing thinkers who see the state as an abuser, so-called liberalists, and so on. So you shouldn't be taken as a communist for proposing that idea. Nowadays those words (communism, neoliberalism) btw are more used by the common people to insult other people than to ponder their ideas, but I don't see them that way.

To fight "swarm stupidity", vote weigths would depend on the individual (proven) knowledge concerning the different topics.

Swarm stupidity is a serious issue. I often come across Bunge's lectures on political philosophy and so on and he talks about "political stupidity as a universal problem". People are often attracted to bad candidates. What you propose is called Epistocracy (government by knowledgeable). It is not technically the same as democracy as it is seen today because, as you say, not everyone has equal voting weight. Only those who demonstrate competence in the subject matter are allowed to vote. Some might argue that this violates democratic principles such as horizontality and equality of citizens to exercise their political rights, but ironically today there are many practical ways in which those principles are also violated in democracy. For example, in my country the dictatorship fabricated a voting system for the "Constituent" where some people could vote twice (while others could not) and where proportional representation was broken, since some municipalities could elect more deputies despite having less inhabitants than other municipalities. Similar things happen in very "democratic" countries like the USA where people do not elect their president, but an electoral college that votes for them. Ironically this was invented to combat "swarm stupidity" but it clearly violates the principle of proportional representation since some states have much more inhabitants than others.

Blockchain & Smart contracts would make that possible.

Yes. These new technologies may prove useful in improving things, although since this is not a technical problem alone, we have a lot of things to fix as well.

Concerning HIVE it's not a democracy anyway, but an oligarchy with oligarchs supporting each other.

I know Hive isn't a democracy, but as far as I know there is or was an internal voting system to elect witnesses isn't there? I think I still have the two witnesses I voted for a few years ago. It's the voting system reminiscent of the democratic voting system I'm talking about. But I don't buy it anymore because of what I said about Arrow's theorem. We are supposed to choose 20 witnesses, so that's more than 2 choices. In this scenario, the real wishes of the people will not be properly balanced and represented.

I hope we will see better blockchain based social networks than HIVE in futre, maybe on the Cardano blockchain ... but only time will tell.

Interesting. I didn't know of that blockchain.

I doubt that a quantum physicist would stringently agree with this statement ... imagine alone the discussion about 'deterministic probabilities'

The idea of deterministic probabilities exists. In short it has to do with the law of large numbers. Quantum Mechanics is certainly a source of pure random phenomena, but discussing whether or not it tributes to determinism depends on the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. In some interpretations the universe remains deterministic.

Some say "Some of our decisions can be forseen by examining/analysing your brain before you yourself know about them." I answer "Well but these unconscious processes before I consciously met any decision are also part of me, I am these biochemical processes leading to my decisions. :)

It's an interesting point of view, but I would reply that you as the conscious being are the dependent variable. Free will has to do with conscious decisions. So, the biochemical processes dominate over you, not the other way around :) It is the Copenhagen interpretation that has given rise to these disturbing ideas about consciousness collapsing the wave function, determining states and affecting physical processes. Most physicists prefer to avoid this idea that consciousness determines things.