"Not sure why you regard that particular formulation as definitive. Nor why it should be considered of any use for a practical understanding of the many claims and questions about free will."
I follow that definition of free will simply because that is as close as I can remember how free will was defined in the philosophy module I did years ago. And I do find it very practical to use it for my argument here, as you must have noticed.
"What does that even mean ... independently of "the state of the universe."? How can anything in the Universe be independent of the state of the Universe?"
I do think "or state of the universe" is not necessary. "ndependently of any prior event" is sufficient I think. But I just quoted the whole sentence.
By the way, what do you understand free will is? You refused to state what you mean by free will but you questioned wafflehead's attempt to describe what free will is. That is sneaky, Copper! You took an unfair advantage!
"(Please don't use the "difference between" site for info as the last one didn't seem even to understand that he was talking only about optical illusions.)" That website differentiates the use of 'illusion' and 'delusion'. And I think that makes sense.
That is why I still call free will as delusion. If you think that is wrong, please explain to me why.
