What is your Freedom?

In its most basic sense the notion of "freedom" (and for that matter creativity) is a rejection of "hard determinism".
It is the notion that there were alternative possiblities for the past and there are alternative possiblities in the future. Ordered possibilites is the fundamental inherent law of reality and nature, not precise specific predictability.
For humans it is the ability to have done or to do "otherwise".

But then, the question is, what does it mean to have the ability fo do otherwise? (I don't know what you mean by "otherwise") I could have done otherwise seems to me to mean something like, "I could have done otherwise if I had chosen to do otherwise". And even if determinism is true (I don't know what you mean by "hard determinism") I sometimes could have done otherwise if I had chosen to do otherwise".

By "hard determinism" I mean something approaching Laplaces demon. There is one and only one possible sequence of events. The laws of nature are not probablistic but are fixed and in theory all events could be precisely predicted given sufficient knowledge and computing power.
If there is no freedom in nature then it would seem human "free will" could be nothing but an "illusion". On the other hand if nature is inherently unpredictable even to a small degree "free will" and "freedom" have a chance (intended).

My Freedom is self control, and my happiness is the knowledge to make reasoned decisions...

In its most basic sense the notion of "freedom" (and for that matter creativity) is a rejection of "hard determinism".
It is the notion that there were alternative possiblities for the past and there are alternative possiblities in the future. Ordered possibilites is the fundamental inherent law of reality and nature, not precise specific predictability.
For humans it is the ability to have done or to do "otherwise".

But then, the question is, what does it mean to have the ability fo do otherwise?

By "hard determinism" I mean something approaching Laplaces demon. There is one and only one possible sequence of events. The laws of nature are not probablistic but are fixed and in theory all events could be precisely predicted given sufficient knowledge and computing power.
If there is no freedom in nature then it would seem human "free will" could be nothing but an "illusion". On the other hand if nature is inherently unpredictable even to a small degree "free will" and "freedom" have a chance (intended).

But are things exactly as they 'could' be, are we missing the point if we dont fight for it?

But if I actually did X, why could I not have done Y if I had chosen to do so? Suppose I purchased some vanilla ice-cream. Why could I not have purchased chocolate ice-cream if I had chosen to purchase chocolate ice-cream? What would have stopped me? (It might very well be true that since I am known to love vanilla, and hate chocolate, it could have been predicted that I would choose vanilla. But, so what? Why would that mean that I did not freely choose vanilla rather than chocolate?) .

It would not. That, however, is not the basic question being asked. The fact that I predicted the Lakers would win last nights basketball game and that they did win does not mean that it was determined that they would win or that there was no other possible outcome to the game. It is not about prediction. It is about whether other possiblities actually exist or whether there is only one possible outcome due to the laws of nature. A question you have yet to answer.

There is of course neither a logically necessary nor a scientific answer but ones intuition or philosophical speculation or metaphysical assumption about nature and determinism does and must affect ones position on free will or any freedom in nature.

But you did say it was about predictability. You wrote, On the other hand if nature is inherently unpredictable even to a small degree "free will" and "freedom" have a chance

Now nature is predictable, and Man is a part of nature. So I suppose that Man is predictable. But it makes no sense to talk about nature being free (or unfree) as you do, at least that I can understand. But it does, at least make sense to talk of Man as free (or unfree). So, I would conclude that unpredictability (even to a small degree) has nothing to do with whether Man is free. (In fact, according to the best information I have about subatomic physics, nature at the subatomic scale is unpredictable, but I don't see that that might have to do with human freedom). The issue, as I already put it, is whether human actions and choices cannot be both free and predictable. Why can it not be predicted, completely accurately, that a person will do something freely? That is, suppose it can be predicted, with complete accuracy, that I will choose vanilla. Why would that mean that I did not freely choose vanilla? Which is to say, I was not compelled in anyway to choose vanilla. I chose it of my own free will. The predictability of my choice seems to me to have nothing to do with whether that choice was free or not. That I would choose it does not imply that I had to choose it (that I could not have helped but choose it).

So, wanting something, in your own words, as nothing to do with "needing" something...elaborate, but not at all convincing !...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Where did I say that? (But, in fact, wanting something need have nothing to do with needing something, as just a cursory observation of children will show you).

Now nature is predictable, and Man is a part of nature. So I suppose that Man is predictable. But it makes no sense to talk about nature being free (or unfree) as you do, at least that I can understand. But it does, at least make sense to talk of Man as free (or unfree). So, I would conclude that unpredictability (even to a small degree) has nothing to do with whether Man is free. (In fact, according to the best information I have about subatomic physics, nature at the subatomic scale is unpredictable, but I don't see that that might have to do with human freedom).

No, of course I did not say that. Nor do I believe that. My wanting something has causes just as I think every other event has (except micro-events). For example, I may want to try a new restaurant because a friend has recommended it to me. But that does not mean I did not want to try the new restaurant of my own free will. Why should it?

Your wanting is based, as I see it, in many (googleplex) micro events...events that are not linear causal, but complex causal...we can for instance speak in a "state of mind" or further, in an entangled state of reality

Well, that may be how you see it. But there is no reason to think you are right. And there is every reason to think that I wanted to visit that restaurant because my friend suggested that I do so. So, there we are. When you provide an argument for your view (and not just tell me that is the "way you see it") I'll be more likely to listen to you.