Is free will compatible with determinism (i.e. can free will and determinism both be true)?

In the argument below Robert Nozick claims that if our actions are determined, our humanity is diminished. Conditions are no better, however, if our actions are random, for either way, random act or caused act, we are not the originators of our actions. Respond to Nozick’s claim.Nozick’s Argument:”Without free will, we seem diminished, merely the playthings of external forces. How, then, can we maintain an exalted view of ourselves? Determinism seems to undercut human dignity, it seems to undermine our value.Some would deny what this question accepts as given, and save free will by denying determinism of (some) actions. Yet if an uncaused action is a random happening, then this no more comports with human value than does determinism. Random acts and caused acts alike seem to leave us not as the valuable originators of action but as an arena, a place where things happen, whether through earlier causes or spontaneously.”(“Free Will”, chapter 4 of Philosophical Explanations, 1981, p.291-2).Evaluate Nozick’s claim. Is free will compatible with determinism (i.e. can free will and determinism both be true)? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not. Are our only choices random acts or caused acts? Explain your answer. If all our actions are determined, then how are we held accountable for our actions? If all our actions are free, then how do we account for determining factors like genetics, environment, social and cultural conditions ect…?Essay instructions:The purpose of this assignment is to train the student to identify the main issue(s) or arguments raised in the assigned text. For the journaling exercise the student should identify the argument the author is making, identify the steps in the argument, and critically evaluate the argument. The student should aim at a clear and concise analysis of the problem/issue being raised and provide a clear, concise, and well-reasoned response. Does the author’s argument convince you? If so, what are the strengths of the argument? If not, what are the weaknesses of the argument?