Hypothetically, science proves free will isn't real

[Ignorant]

In the sense of us determining otherwise. If indeterminism is true a set of dice 'could have done otherwise' in the sense that they could have rolled otherwise. But that's no kind of freedom.

The problem is that a free will requires a free determinination, but our will however determined is ultimately determined by other things if determinism is true, and if determinism is false then our will doesn't determine anything. If determinism is true there is no willing at all.

So would it matter at all if we were 'able to do otherwise' in the sense that we are things with the ability to do the other thing if the requisite circumstances were present?

A choice is free if we define "uncoerced" [1] and "voluntary" [2] to mean "free".

What do 1 and 2 mean? How does this help me to understand what a free choice is?

The problem with that is no one defines the existence of that kind of "free choice" or "free will"

Care to solve the problem and define 'that kind' of free choice? So far your definition is pretty vague (probably due to my ignorance).

It's like philosophers started talking about one thing and then the compatabilist stepped in and changed the subject... (compatablism just means the belief that free will is compatible with determinism. Well, who denies any kind of freedom so broad that it is compatible with a fully deterministic universe anyway? That's why it ignores the whole question. It jumps in with a trival truth.)

This seems like confusing terminology... didn't you say that "could have done otherwise" is the same as "us determining otherwise". The question is not whether or not human actions are determined... the question is who/what does the determining: either the person self-determines action in pure independence from determining influence; the person self-determines action in concert with determining influence; or the person does not determine action at all, rather other, non personally operating processes determine human action.