I agree, thanks for the conversation.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, or at least understand where you're coming from.

And although I do understand that simplicity does not necessarily imply accuracy, I happen to think that my current model of the world that rejects free will does a very good job of describing what I see in the world. Moreso than when I try to introduce free will for every person to the model.

The one thing that's a little disappointing with it is that it doesn't satisfy our intuition, as you mention, that it certainly feels like we have free will in our daily lives.

But this seems similar to how it doesn't necessarily feel like the earth is round, or that large objects bend spacetime - even though those propositions become very important when working over larger distances.

And just as a carpenter will probably not take the curvature of the earth into account when building a small house, so too might we adopt a different (albeit perhaps less accurate) assumption about free will when attending to our daily needs.

But when it comes to theorizing about laws and systems that can affect a larger society, it seems to me like free will becomes an impediment, and its rejection becomes more important for a clear and fair vision of the world and the people in it.

That's how it seems to me at the moment anyway. I've changed my mind on it in the past, and I could change it again.