Yes, that's my understanding as well. (Not sure what you mean with "reject 3)" - they basically say it doesn't happen, and it need not happen for free will.)

Yes, that's my understanding as well. (Not sure what you mean with "reject 3)" - they basically say it doesn't happen, and it need not happen for free will.) The thought experiment is always "suppose we could turn back time, and arrive in exactly the same situation as we were before - could I have decided differently?". The traditional notion of free will sort of requires that you could have decided differently. The compatibilist notion of free will implies that, no, you could not have decided differently - but that doesn't mean that you have no free will. EDIT to add: Sam Harris has a book about his version of compatibilism: https://samharris.org/books/free-will/ https://samharris.org/books/free-will/