Since free will can’t be adequately defined, we can’t really comment on what it is or isn’t. But the concept of choice is clearly defined, so we can talk about choice.

It’s not possible to make a “free” choice, as I’ve explained countless times now. This is not mysterious or complex beyond human understanding. It’s fairly simple and straightforward.

Even though we can’t define free will adequately, what we can do is express a condition: IF free will is defined so that it is related to or depends on choice, then free will is a logical impossibility and cannot exist. Notice that this statement doesn’t say what free will is or isn’t, or even if it exists or not. It’s saying that if you define it in a certain way, then the result is a logical impossibility.

What this means is that, for those who believe that free will exists, they must define it in a way such that it is not related to or dependent on choice.

So here’s my final word: If someone can define free will in a way such that it is not related to or dependent on choice, and in a way that preserves the meaning of the word “free”, then I’ll agree that free will exists. I’m waiting…