The same as yours, I would think..
Clearly not. My definition requires that there be some way to observe a thing that exists, at least in theory.
..except that I believe that it is possible for things to exist that are either beyond our comprehension, or capacity to observe.
That's not a definition. it is an emotional appeal.
If it is impossible *even in theory* to observe something, its existence is no different than its non-existence.
So, let's ask if it is possible for something to exist that doesn't interact with *anything* else: so there is no way to detect it, no way to observe it, even through its effect on other things, no way in which it has any effect on *anything*.
Does it even make sense to say it exists? I would say not.
..notice in my argument on compatibility, I do not claim that free-will and a determined universe are ALWAYS compatible..
I just lay out the case for one possibility, based on an agent that MIGHT exist, that we cannot observe.
And, in that case, what does it even mean to say it exists? What distinguishes it from those things that do not exist?
The business about contingency, is only one way to explain it .. you are effectively putting the cart before the horse.
..but that is irrelevant to you, as you do not believe it is possible to know the future, without it being responsible
for causing it.
No, I am NOT claiming that knowledge determines the future or that the one that knows determines the future. I am saying that if knowledge is possible, then the future is determined. Both have a common logical origin, but neither causes the other.