I think Free Will must be understood from the point of an actor who is trying to influence other actors. How will the actor we are trying to influence react? WE cannot force their reaction. Therefore from our point of view they have free will. We cannot control their will. Whereas, if they were puppets we could control their behavior to a large degree.
This has to do with the point about agency in the article. Everything in your "light-cone" can and will affect what decisions you make. But there are so many butterflies in your light-cone that you cannot say any one of them (alone) decides what your decision is. They cannot force your decisions and thus you have free will. No other actor can control your decisions. You are free of their will, thus your will is free of their will. Thus you have "free will".
We need to first ask what we mean by Free Will before contemplating whether we have it or not. So we have to ask, if we have free will what is it free of? I would propose it means free from undue influence by others.
Think of some politicians claiming they stand for "freedom". Freedom from what and freedom for whom. My freedom to do anything I want, carry a machine gun for instance, interferes from the freedom others want to be free of gun violence. So when talking about freedom we have to always consider freedom for whom to do what? Similarly "free will" must be qualified by: free of what?
I think a good answer is "free from coercion by others". Now, you can coerce me to do anything, to say anything, and really to WANT anything you want me to want, by threatening my life with a gun. So, we only have free will in as far nobody is infringing on our basic freedoms.
But how about the coercion of our own bodies? Is our will free if we're (for example) free to consume all we want, even if that consumption makes us feel worse in the long run and we know it?
And in this case, is the issue weakness of will, or is the will determined to do what seems best based on its available knowledge?
That's a novel viewpoint although maybe little schizophrenic, our body coercing our mind/will? Is that how you view it? Our mind wants to be free of our body?
I don't feel like this is a fair representation of my viewpoint, it certainly makes me a little angry. I'm afraid I'll have to discontinue this discussion.
This has to do with the point about agency in the article. Everything in your "light-cone" can and will affect what decisions you make. But there are so many butterflies in your light-cone that you cannot say any one of them (alone) decides what your decision is. They cannot force your decisions and thus you have free will. No other actor can control your decisions. You are free of their will, thus your will is free of their will. Thus you have "free will".