By George, I think you've got it, Park. Regardless of what a concept has previously been thought to mean, or even what a dictionary says (even though that can be very helpful), a true definition of something includes only its essentials. If a part of something previously thought to be necessary to that thing is found to be in contradiction to the foundations of cognition itself, namely the laws of identity, causality and noncontradiction, then that quality must be removed from the definition and not be considered to exist. By any objective definition, predeterminism cannot exist because the concept of it conflicts with reality. If one means that what will be will be based on physical law only, then they should say that. They would also do well to recognize that this does not validly suggest that the future is written yet or that choice doesn't exist.
Have we agreed that when you put the letters PRE before a word, it is meant to signify that the subject does something before whatever action is implied by the root word? Have we agreed that determine means that preceding matter and energy only are responsible for an event? So how could the existence of an event be existent before it exists?
It is freewill that is the illusion, not choice. The only thing that this predeterminism insistence can demonstrate as invalid is that we cannot have a third person omniscient view of reality. Then choice couldn't exist. This omniscient view is the same exact impossibility that God represents. Brains within reality can imagine logically plausible scenarios and act towards the end of one, partly because predeterminism is impossible.
Semantic hair splitting, I think, is eventually necessary to gain increasing literal knowledge of the world. The more we can define words with only essential characteristics and use them concretely, the more we will be able to know and communicate.
I have to disagree. In a deterministic universe, though it may be an unhappy thought, you are the product of events, not the free spirit you'd like to think you are. The equations necessary to predict your future "choices" are unworkably large but, If you don't dwell on it, you can go with the flow and feel comfortable punishing yourself and others for moral transgressions (bad choices).
I've always thought that retribution and punishment should not be goals of a civilized society, but, instead, prevention. Isolate sociopaths, don't torture them directly or indirectly (sending them out into an exercise yard to be shanked).