Per the article, we can’t even agree on what free will is.

We absolutely have the illusion of free will.

Free will is a convenient moral and legal abstraction. It doesn’t need to be ditched, even if epistemically non-existent.

It’s epistemically false because our actions are dictated solely by factors that are outside our control (even what we think is outside our control). But those factors are so complex in both number and interaction that might as well abstract them out and pretend that there’s individual choice, that Alice does something that Bob wouldn’t because of their “free will”.

The debate about free will is a theological one, not something to bother pure science. The evidence we have is there, the evidence we lack can be excised with Occam’s Razor.

“You’re thirsty so you reach for a glass of water.”

Insert the capability to voluntarily refuse food and water or any other behavior that goes completely against all instinct of self preservation.

Arguing that we do not have free will based on “physical and biological luck” is misguided.

All physics and biology is mere observation. We know of neurons due to microscopes, Protons from cloud chambers. We know free will in the same way, observation. Accept a far more regular, definate and intimate observation. I have not actually seen a neuron except in a textbook, even then, those who wrote the text book probably did not spend as much of their lives over glass slides as they did deciding upon things. Moreover, no interpretation of my experiences is needed to arrive at a notion of will, whereas scientific data must be intrepreted before they can produce meaning.