The question “Do we have free will?” (on its own) is a non-starter. Whether we possess such a thing as free will or not is entirely an issue of linguistics, and not of ontology. Arguing over whether this abstract concept is in fact part of our reality or not is a waste of time unless we nail down the exact definition we are talking about. I am not advocating for a taboo on this topic, but rather a shift of focus. Debates should revolve primarily around what definition of free will is the most useful to describe our world. Provided a concrete definition, answering the ontological question should, in most cases, be quite straightforward given our current understanding of the universe.

You may argue that any question could be scrutinized linguistically to the point of complete meaninglessness. However, compared to other common ‘metaphysical’ questions such as “Do we have an immortal soul?”, it is more ill-defined. Arguing over the existence of souls is akin to arguing over the validity of naturalism, which is a valid conversation to have (although with a clear outcome in my opinion).

One big problem with debates around of free will is that there are some notions of free will that can easily be refuted to be part of our universe, while others can very well be considered real. For instance, the idea that there is a part of us beyond all of the atoms that make up our bodies and the laws of physics that determines our behavior can likely be disregarded. This is a claim about reality that should be measurable, but has never been observed. On the other hand, the notion of free will as the ability to make choices that are independent from outside pressures, such as peer or societal pressure, is clearly a real (although fuzzy) phenomenon.

Another problem I’ve encountered a lot is a notion of free will that is at odds with determinism. The idea is that we could somehow be prisoners of the physical laws that govern the universe (maybe the term ‘physical laws’ is partially to blame for this). This notion is completely incoherent to me for the following reason: To be able to make decisions based on reasoning, experience or personality we NEED a system that develops in an orderly fashion according to rules that describe its future state based on its current state. In other words, the laws of physics actually ALLOW for acting (deciding, thinking) agents. Otherwise we would just be random noise. We are not in some way constrained by the particles in our brain obeying the laws of physics. We ARE those processes. If our universe were completely deterministic, then what you will do in the future, in a way, is indeed already decided. But is you who decided it, and you have yet to do so.

Overall, the idea of free will begs the question of what we are supposed to be free from in the first place. What we should focus on instead, in my opinion, is the ‘will’ part. What characteristics are required for a system to be considered to have agency and goal-directed behavior? These are well-posed, scientific questions with no metaphysical baggage. Let’s reserve discussions in ontology for what is truly mysterious (e.g. the relationship between phenomenal consciousness and physics).