Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by p

Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by people to explain their observations of themselves and others making decisions. As a concept it has historically been scoped to our lived experiences. A person can choose to sin (or not), choose to commit a crime (or not), choose how to react to their stimulus and base motivations. A hungry person can choose not to eat, and go on a hunger strike. An irate person can choose not to be violent toward the object of their anger. An aroused person can choose not to have sex with the object of their desire. Which of these decisions violate our understanding of physics? None of them. A person on hunger strike will eventually die of malnutrition or lack of energy, no matter how strong their will to live on. In that way it is (and has been) a concept which is strongly constrained by physical reality, not a metaphysical free-for-all.