Free Will is always a favorite with philosophers. Are we free to think? Do we make our own decisions? Are we predetermined? All are very good questions. But I'm here to show that free will is actually kinda pointless. Now, for the purpose of this discussion, let's say that logic is valid (If we didn't things would be very weird.) Now Free Will is defined my Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary as:
| Main Entry: free will Function: noun Date: 13th century 1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention |
With this in mind, let us approach what this boils down to. To exhibit free will, we MUST not use any form of prior cause. Now, let's look at an example scenario. You are faced with the choice to jump off a cliff or take a free million dollars. Obviously, an individual would choose the million dollars, but they do so because the have a need for money. This need for money is a prior cause. If they had no need for money, the million dollars would be pointless. But without prior cause they would not have a "need to survive" as a consequence, they would value the million dollars at the the level as they do jumping off a cliff. Since you can not use a prior cause, then they must be chosen by some other method. The only possible method availible method that meets this requirement is no method at all, chaos. The decision would be make without reason. Even using a coin to decide would be unacceptable, as you would have the prior cause of the coin landing on heads. Even the "Because I want to" method violates the prior cause due to the something caused you to want it.
As a consequence, Free Will, although free, lacks will, because will is a prior cause. Thusly, Free Will is not Free Will.