I agree with you when you say

> One of the central criteria for free will is “Could I have done otherwise?” But because of a temporal asymmetry in human choice, the question makes no sense.

I think that free will is a useful concept that feels true and useful, more true and useful than the alternative of “already written”.

I’ll give the example of watching a recording of a basketball game where I already know the final score. I am watching the deterministic process of things unfold, shots being missed, fouls being called, players getting tired. But at the end of the day, I know that the score will be met, even if that means one team hits 15 three pointers in a row and the other team misses layup after layup. It will happen.

And yet, a coach can say useful things about the deterministic side of things, things like “you’re not turning your hips enough” and “see how the defender turns his head here and there is the possibility for an entry pass?”

But nobody really has anything useful to say about the extra knowledge version where the interplay of actions and decisions is taken off the table. You’re left with inanities like “I guess the home team is going to get hot in the second half” and things like that.

Choosing between which version is more interesting and useful, it’s the deterministic, free will one. (I know that determinism and free will are often put on opposite sides of the debate, so I think it’s interesting that in this thought experiment they are on the same side, against a sort of omniscient pre determination.) Believing in free will let’s us talk about habit formation and deciding who you want to be as a person and all that stuff. It’s William James’s Right to Believe. In a debatable situation, we’re allowed to throw our beliefs behind the worldview that gives us more of a chance of success.