Unfortunately can does not mean always will. For example, lock-free algorithms do not have any contention, ergo we can have concurrency without running into unbounded non-determinism. Please try to actually understand what you're talking about before being so rude to people. Copying and pasting the first thing you find on Google is no substitute for learning and careful research.
For that matter, what little of deterministic concurrency exists (FP interleaving, coroutines), it is only the palest imitation of true concurrency and how it gets used in practice for which one can SAFELY assume that useful and meaningful concurrency DOES IN FACT constitute non-determinism which also happens to be an apt way to summarize and contrast the subject with parallelism.
The best way to demonstrate deterministic concurrency would probably be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_long_instruction_word
But for the purposes of anybody on here, that's mostly irrelevant.
> Concurrency is by definition, non-determinism.
The fact is that you are wrong: coroutines are a form of deterministic concurrency. They're also very useful.
And I quote, "In computer science, unbounded nondeterminism or unbounded indeterminacy is a property of concurrency by which the amount of delay in servicing a request can become unbounded as a result of arbitration of contention for shared resources while still guaranteeing that the request will eventually be serviced. Unbounded nondeterminism became an important issue in the development of the denotational semantics of concurrency, and later became part of research into the theoretical concept of hypercomputation."
If you haven't even read the wiki page, what have you read about concurrency exactly? Are you just making it up as you go along? Is confabulation about topics subject to factual review a habit for you?