Is it possible to empirically prove free will?

lonegardener said:I don't see how. 🤷

The whole idea of "freedom" is an absolute mystery. It feels like a subjective impression that you just can't prove or disprove through an experiment (sure, there are studies that claim to debunk free will, but I find them unconvincing). At the end of the day, you either choose to believe in freedom or you don't.

If someone believes in free will, they’ll likely argue that they *chose* to believe in it (just as others chose the opposite).

On the flip side, someone who doesn't believe in free will will say they have no choice but to feel that way—because free will doesn't exist, so there's no "decision" to be made. They simply believe because they must, just as others must believe.

Personally, I'm undecided 😬—as usual. I honestly can't tell if I'm unsure because it's predetermined, or because I've freely decided to remain indecisive. 🤣

If there is one thing that grates on my nerves in a debate, it’s when someone labels something a 'mystery'—implying it's totally beyond our grasp—and then immediately turns around and tries to lecture us on what we can or cannot know about that very mystery. It's a bit of a logical circle, isn't it? ☕ Generally speaking, I find that there is rarely such a thing as a sound argument built upon the foundation of a mystery.

Quincy:

Those who believe in freedom will typically argue that they *chose* to believe in it (while others simply chose the opposite path: a refusal to believe). Conversely, those who don't believe in freedom will claim their disbelief isn't a choice at all, but rather an inevitability—that because freedom doesn't exist, there is no capacity to 'decide' anything; they are simply compelled by necessity to disbelieve, just as others are compelled by necessity to believe.

But what about those people who didn't believe in free will until they encountered a compelling argument that finally convinced them? (I know myself as an example here.)

James Lee77 said:Proof feels like this kind of pressure, you know? Like a total necessity. I guess once you actually wrap your head around a piece of proof, you don't really get a choice in whether you believe it or not. There isn't much room left for options, it’s just straight-up necessity—you pretty much have to admit it's true if it's been proven.

It would be super weird if there wasn't freedom of choice in whether you believe in free will, because then you'd basically be forced to believe in free will. But honestly, it totally fits with having free will that I can choose to (not) believe that such freedom even exists.

So, I guess it actually makes sense that there shouldn't be any proof for free will. If someone feels like they need proof that they have free will, they probably don't really get what free will is. And if you actually get it, you wouldn't need proof anyway (and maybe wouldn't even want it).

You're free to be (un)free.

Inconsistent? Based on what logic?

Quincy:

Anyone who truly understands freedom of choice doesn't require a proof for it (nor would they ever entertain one).

And who exactly told you that?

Quincy:

It is free to be (un)free.

That's just empty rhetoric. ☕

.. what even is free will? .. is it actually just proof that at some point, a person can start acting independently of everything that led up to that moment? ..

.. say someone lives in an environment they’ve fully embraced .. and let's say they’ve built a version of themselves they’re actually comfortable with ..
.. suppose everything is great—they're happy, in love, settled .. and then .. does suicide serve as the ultimate proof of their free will?

.. I still lean toward believing we have free will — damn it .. we are free to choose the very framework of our existence.
.. you could put it this way .. we are free to choose our own gods .. who will eventually build churches and appoint priests for us to serve ..

.. that’s how you might find someone .. a wonderful, well-adjusted person, perfectly in sync with themselves and the world around them .. who suddenly takes their own life .. not because they possess free will, per se, but because they chose two gods who couldn't coexist.
.. those could be the gods of conflicting truths .. the drive for self-preservation is perhaps the most natural human instinct .. yet there is one other just as primal .. the urge for self-destruction.

What would actual, hands-on proof of free will even look like? And how could we ever be sure it’s proving we have it, rather than just proving we don't? Can we even wrap our heads around—let alone actually feel—what life would be like if free will didn't exist? I mean, can we experience anything other than what's happening... and why it's happening in the first place?

It's wild, right? It always comes back to that one massive question: *why*... plus all the spin-offs like *how*, *in what way*, *for what reason*, and a million other variations. At the end of the day, we really gotta ask ourselves why we even possess will... and why it works the way it does.

Some people have stared into the void wondering why anything exists at all... and they came up with the answer "God," hoping the concept would carry enough weight to actually mean something instead of just being a fancy way of saying "I have no clue."
Other folks have wondered why we make the choices we do... and they landed on "free will," praying that term would eventually hold some real substance rather than just serving as a placeholder for "I don't get it."

Nobody truly knows the how or the why; we just know it is. Honestly, no one who claims to have a perfectly logical take like, "Free will is clearly defined and I'm certain enough to build my whole worldview on it," can actually grasp what it would feel like to lack it... or even what it means to have it. The big thing here is freedom, because if there’s one thing humans absolutely loathe, it’s being trapped.

The real kicker is... how would being unfree actually feel different from being free?

Nancy Brown11 said:Flip it around: can we actually prove through experience that free will doesn't exist?

And would the answer to one of these questions basically dictate the answer to the other?

I’m not just asking if free will is real or not—I mean, is it even possible to provide empirical evidence regarding its absence?

Broadly speaking, proving existence works by filling a totality until it reaches completion using a "medium"—a substance that serves as the very thing you're trying to prove. For instance, if you want to prove there's a monster in your closet, you open the door and look inside. If you see the monster, you have essentially filled that space with the matter that constitutes the monster itself.

Proving nonexistence, however, requires filling that totality with something that is specifically *not* the thing you are investigating. To prove there isn't an invisible monster in the closet, you fill the closet with water—something the monster is not. If you pour enough water into that closet to fill it completely, you've effectively proven the invisible monster isn't there.

The "problem" with applying this logic to absolute, all-encompassing concepts like "freedom" is that these terms are already considered complete; you can't really "fill" them. If you attempt to fill something that is already whole, you end up dismantling the entire concept, leaving you with nothing but the endless process of filling itself. You just keep adding more and more and more...

But at the same time, precisely because "freedom" is already a complete concept, you can simply *Know* that you possess it. To use a caricature: freedom shouldn't hit a wall when it encounters "us." If it hits a limit, it isn't truly freedom anymore because it's no longer whole. In other words, freedom couldn't care less about boundaries. If it doesn't stop, then it is complete, and therefore, we automatically possess it.

That Knowledge can produce a direct experience of your own agency, your own free will, even if what you currently "see" or feel suggests the exact opposite. If you know you are free, then you know that all boundaries—in any form—are mere illusions; they aren't real, including the boundary called the "self." If the "self" is free, then the "self" is much larger than what the "self" perceives based on its current sensations.

It’s similar to how you know Earth orbits the Sun, even though your immediate visual input tells you the exact opposite—you see a sphere moving across the sky. At the same time, you don't feel or see the Earth spinning. To your senses, it seems "obvious" that the Sun moves around the Earth, yet simultaneously, you know the reality is the reverse; you know the Sun's apparent movement is just an illusion of perspective.

Ever since we crawled out of the wild American savanna, our concept of free will has been strictly confined to the basic mechanics of
taking care of our biological needs. And if you look at the trajectory of modern life, it’s clear that this trend is only accelerating, leaving us with even less autonomy over everything else.

I truly believe that human beings don't actually possess free will; rather, our behavior is essentially pre-programmed and then subject to constant, ongoing reprogramming through a sort of Las Vegas method, utilizing continuous input from our surrounding environment.

Rachel Palmer21 said:I truly believe that human beings don't actually possess free will; rather, our behavior is essentially pre-programmed and then subject to constant, ongoing reprogramming through a sort of Las Vegas method, utilizing continuous input from our surrounding environment.

I'm curious, though—what exactly is this method supposed to be? And who is this mysterious "programmer" we're talking about? How does all this programming even happen? Is this some kind of lesson from Stuart Swerdlow?

Quincy:

druid As the saying goes: But really, one must pause and wonder—what exactly constitutes this particular methodology? It’s much like when you’re trying to follow a complex recipe from a vintage cookbook only to realize the instructions are missing a crucial step; without a clear definition of the process itself, we are simply wandering through a fog of ambiguity! I am quite eager to understand the specific mechanics at play here.

Have you ever stopped to consider the sheer, breathtaking audacity of the Monte Carlo method? It is truly one of those mathematical marvels that makes you want to stand up and applaud the very concept of randomness! Imagine, if you will, a situation where a problem is so incredibly complex, so layered with variables and unpredictable whims, that traditional, deterministic equations simply buckle under the pressure—much like how a standard sedan might struggle to navigate a sudden, torrential downpour on a winding road through the Rockies. In such moments, we don't just throw our hands up in despair; instead, we embrace the chaos! We turn to the beauty of repeated sampling. It’s quite similar to how a seasoned pollster in Washington, D.C., wouldn't just ask one single person their opinion on a new tax bill and assume they've captured the heartbeat of the nation. No, they gather thousands upon thousands of individual data points, letting the collective weight of these random samples coalesce into a clear, statistically sound picture of reality. We are essentially using the unpredictability of chance to pin down the truth! It is an approach that feels almost poetic in its elegance. By simulating a vast multitude of scenarios—think of it like running ten thousand different versions of a flight path from JFK to Los Angeles, each with slightly different wind speeds or engine efficiencies—we can observe where the results tend to cluster. Eventually, that chaotic cloud of data begins to settle, revealing a predictable pattern amidst the noise. It’s a brilliant way to tame the wild beast of uncertainty, turning what looks like pure luck into a sophisticated tool for precision! Isn't science just wonderful?
Quincy:

Now, one might find themselves pondering the profound question: what exactly constitutes a "programmer," and by what intricate mechanisms does the actual act of programming take place? It is a query that invites us to dive deep into the very fabric of our modern digital existence! To understand the essence of a programmer, one shouldn't merely think of someone hunched over a glowing screen—though, heaven knows, they certainly do that quite often! Instead, imagine them as a sort of high-tech architect or perhaps a master translator. Just as an architect takes a nebulous dream of a skyscraper and translates it into precise blueprints that a construction crew can follow, a programmer takes a complex, abstract human desire—say, the wish to order a pizza with a single tap on a smartphone—and translates that desire into a logical structure that a machine can comprehend. They are the bridge between human intention and silicon reality! As for the "how" of it all, the process is nothing short of a sophisticated dance of logic and syntax. You see, computers are, at their core, remarkably fast but surprisingly literal-minded creatures; they don't "understand" nuance the way we do. Therefore, we utilize programming languages—think of them as highly structured dialects, much like how one might use specialized legal jargon in a New York courtroom or technical specifications when working with NASA engineers. The process typically unfolds in several rhythmic stages. First, there is the conceptualization, where the logic is mapped out. Then comes the writing of the code itself, using those specific languages like Python or C++. Once the instructions are laid down, the real excitement begins: debugging! This is the part of the journey where one must act like a digital detective, hunting down tiny, microscopic errors in logic that are behaving like a misplaced semicolon acting as a pebble in a high-performance jet engine. Through this iterative cycle of writing, testing, and refining, the programmer breathes life into the machine, turning cold electricity into the vibrant, interactive world we navigate every single day! Isn't that just absolutely marvelous?

Evolution! And oh, Josh, you simply must consider applying a Monte Carlo method here! It’s just like how we might try to predict the chaotic fluctuations of the stock market by running thousands of different simulations to see where the trends might actually land; you can't just rely on a single path when the variables are shifting so wildly beneath your feet!
Quincy:

Is this all part of the teachings of Stuart Swerdlow?

Who exactly are we talking about here? I find myself quite curious!

S.S. is some kind of conspiracy theorist, though he operates on a slightly different wavelength than guys like Alex Jones... he mostly rambles about this idea of "programming" the human race and all those weird spikes—it’s basically a massive cocktail of everything under the sun, which sounds like a whole lot of mumbo jumbo if you ask me, but hey, it's still pretty interesting to dive into. It's always good to know there's even more out there...

Reading what you wrote, it felt like that might be part of his whole thing, since they use terms like "this programming" or "that programming" to describe almost everything living. Anyway, you could probably just Google him and find some clips of his lectures to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes. I couldn't even find an entry for him on Wikipedia hehe, so it's definitely some pretty underground stuff...

There is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence suggesting that the human organism is essentially programmable, which leads me to believe there is undeniable proof that certain biological configurations simply lack the capacity for free will altogether.
- Nazi Germany,
- suicide terrorists
- brainwashing

Of course, one could always attempt to argue that an individual made a perfectly autonomous choice to surrender their own agency,
but that logic falls apart just as easily as claiming that planet Earth exercised its own independent volition when it decided to embark on its eternal orbit around the sun.

mistyscout2 said:I'm curious, though—what exactly is this method supposed to be? And who is this mysterious "programmer" we're talking about? How does all this programming even happen? Is this some kind of lesson from Stuart Swerdlow?

Does coding actually need a programmer, or is that just some weird linguistic quirk we've all accepted...??

Olivia Evans8 said:Does coding actually need a programmer, or is that just some weird linguistic quirk we've all accepted...??

What even is a program?🤷

Interesting side note

...Once the conditioning—basically the reprogramming—is finished, Alexander isn't avoiding bad behavior because he chooses to be good; it's because his own body betrays him. The second he even thinks about being violent, he gets hit with this massive wave of nausea that doesn't let up until he drops the thought. It’s like you can hardwire someone's physical reactions, but their mind is still technically running its own show.
Still, you've got that twisted prison chaplain whining about how this kind of conditioning basically nukes free will. And honestly? He's got a point. Alexander might have had the initial impulse to lash out, but since his body physically revolted against it, he didn't actually have a choice in the matter. So, yeah, free will? Gone.

Mark Torres14 said:What even is a program?🤷

Look, you can go find a bunch of definitions on Wikipedia if you want... but here's the real deal. If we can actually pin down and precisely define exactly how matter is behaving, then that whole description? That’s what we call a program.

Grace Williams43 said:Interesting side note

...Once the conditioning—basically the reprogramming—is finished, Alexander isn't avoiding bad behavior because he chooses to be good; it's because his own body betrays him. The second he even thinks about being violent, he gets hit with this massive wave of nausea that doesn't let up until he drops the thought. It’s like you can hardwire someone's physical reactions, but their mind is still technically running its own show.
Still, you've got that twisted prison chaplain whining about how this kind of conditioning basically nukes free will. And honestly? He's got a point. Alexander might have had the initial impulse to lash out, but since his body physically revolted against it, he didn't actually have a choice in the matter. So, yeah, free will? Gone.

What does that even have to do with free will? Before the whole procedure, Alexander had the urge and he acted on it. Simple. After the treatment, he feels sick, so he decides not to take the risk because, hey, being nauseous sucks! If he were some kind of masochist, though, the treatment would actually backfire since he might end up enjoying the sickness that hits whenever he wants to lash out...

The movie lays out a few big points here: first, our desires are baked into who we are. Second, if you rewire someone's brain so that an urge is immediately met with enough intensity of discomfort to scare them off, then you've got a solid plan for rehab.

Even with the treatment, Alexander can still *want* to be violent. He could even go through with it, it would just be way harder for him now. So, in the end, the "freedom" of his will remains untouched by the treatment...

Who exactly is Alexander?
The crux of the matter, you see, is that he seems almost fundamentally wired to pursue violence—it’s as if it’s etched into his very DNA, or perhaps more likely, deeply ingrained through his upbringing since day one.

says:
Go look at Wikipedia if you want definitions. My point is this: if we can precisely define how matter behaves, then that description becomes a program.

I know what a definition is.
Here’s my actual thought:
If there's any kind of algorithmic program used to predict how anything behaves—and that program is at the core of what we call life—then free will is impossible.
On the flip side, if there is no algorithm at the foundation of life, then free will might exist, but "life" as we know it wouldn't. Paradox? Maybe.
Basically, we could only talk about free will in terms of degrees, where humans are essentially just drawing the line for where those gradients sit. I'm assuming we're talking about free will as a byproduct of rational decision-making, regardless of whatever caused that decision in the first place.
If free will requires reason to exist, then going back to my original point, is reason actually the direct opposite of a program? Is that really how it works?

I guess you could say we actually have free will, but only if we’re capable of acting in alignment with our own human nature.

To me, freedom isn't some reckless "I'll do whatever I feel like in the moment" kind of thing. It's more about having the capacity to do what actually fulfills us as human beings.

It even changes how you look at happiness. If you follow Spinoza’s logic in *Ethics*, happiness is basically just the transition from a lesser state to a greater one—essentially, it's the process of finally realizing that free will.

Hey guys! Just wanted to jump in here and share some thoughts on what’s been going on lately... honestly, things are moving so fast! It feels like every single day there's some new update or shift that catches us all off guard. But hey, that's just how it goes sometimes, right? I'm staying super pumped about where everything is heading though! Everything feels so high-energy lately... it's kind of wild if you think about it! Anyway, just my two cents! Catch you all later... kaže:
Wait, who is Alexander?... Seriously, does anyone actually know the deal with him?... I'm totally lost here!
The whole thing boils down to this... he’s basically hardwired to be violent. It’s baked right into his DNA, and honestly? That upbringing didn't help one bit either...

So, Alex is basically the main man in *A Clockwork Orange*. And honestly? Yeah, he’s totally programmed from the jump. But even with all that extra brainwashing stuff they throw at him, it barely touches his actual will... I mean, it's like nothing more than a tiny little wasp sting to him...

So, I was just thinking about those little kitchen helpers—you know, the ones we call servantes? Honestly, they’re such a lifesaver when you're trying to keep things organized during a massive Sunday brunch or something... Just having that extra surface area makes everything feel so much smoother! It’s like having a tiny assistant right there on the counter... total game changer for anyone who loves to cook without the chaos... kaže:
Look, I totally get the definition! I really do...
So, I've been chewing on this idea...
Look, if there’s actually some kind of master algorithm out there—you know, a code that can predict exactly how anything behaves because it’s baked right into the core of what we call life... then free will is basically a myth. It just wouldn't exist. Everything would be predetermined... totally scripted...
Look, here’s the thing... if there isn’t some kind of underlying algorithmic code driving everything, then yeah, maybe free will is a real thing. But if that’s the case, then what we call "life" basically ceases to exist. It's a total paradox! Like, how does that even work??????
So, basically, when we talk about free will, we’re really just talking about degrees, right? It’s like a sliding scale... and honestly, I feel like we're the ones drawing those lines ourselves. Because, if I'm following your logic, you're looking at free will as this thing that happens after we make a rational choice—regardless of whatever crazy chain reaction actually triggered that decision in the first place...
So, if we’re assuming that free will only exists because we have reason, then we could basically circle back to the start of this whole thing and say that reason is the total opposite of a program... right? Is that really how it works though? I mean... maybe...

No way! My biggest gripe with all those people out there preaching about free will is that absolutely nobody actually gets it... How's it going?... It’s all about the will making those calls. Honestly, "reason" is just some arbitrary label we slap on things, kind of like how people toss around the word "freedom"—it's such a vague, empty descriptor that doesn't actually tell you much. So, what even counts as an irrational will or an irrational decision? Can you actually show me the difference...?

Honestly, all we’re ever really doing is making moves based on whatever half-baked info we happen to have on hand at the moment... It’s kind of wild when you think about it! There isn't even a massive difference between acting smart and acting totally reckless. We all just hide behind our own logic, pretending we’ve got it all figured out by listing off all those specific variables that led to the choice (you know, our "knowledge") and how we actually landed on it—whether that process was super calculated or just completely random... It's all just a bit of a facade!

So, you're asking how the lack of an algorithm somehow proves life isn't real? That's a wild one... seriously! Like, where do we even start with that logic? It’s such a trip to think about... honestly! If you're looking at the universe like it's just a bunch of math or some giant computer program, then yeah, I get why someone would say if there's no code, there's no "player." But man, that's such a narrow way to look at things! Life isn't just lines of code running on a server somewhere... it's messy, it's loud, and it's totally unpredictable! Even if there wasn't a pre-set script or some master algorithm guiding every single atom, that doesn't mean we aren't actually *here* feeling everything. Reality doesn't need a formula to be valid... it just exists! It's all about the experience, right? Just pure, unscripted chaos... and honestly, that's the best part!

Jacob Chavez36 said:I guess you could say we actually have free will, but only if we’re capable of acting in alignment with our own human nature.

To me, freedom isn't some reckless "I'll do whatever I feel like in the moment" kind of thing. It's more about having the capacity to do what actually fulfills us as human beings.

It even changes how you look at happiness. If you follow Spinoza’s logic in *Ethics*, happiness is basically just the transition from a lesser state to a greater one—essentially, it's the process of finally realizing that free will.

But you’re still totally failing to justify why freedom even matters in this whole debate! Like, seriously... We have will, that's just an obvious fact at this point. But what does "freedom" actually add to the equation? It doesn't change anything! And hey, we could just as easily say we have "graceful will" and it would be just as logical. Because let's be real—human nature isn't some fixed, unchangeable thing, and saying someone "can" do something doesn't mean any more than just saying "I'm thinking about doing something"...

Olivia Evans8 said:

Hey guys! Just wanted to jump in here and share some thoughts on what’s been going on lately... honestly, things are moving so fast! It feels like every single day there's some new update or shift that catches us all off guard. But hey, that's just how it goes sometimes, right? I'm staying super pumped about where everything is heading though! Everything feels so high-energy lately... it's kind of wild if you think about it! Anyway, just my two cents! Catch you all later... kaže:
Wait, who is Alexander?... Seriously, does anyone actually know the deal with him?... I'm totally lost here!
The whole thing boils down to this... he’s basically hardwired to be violent. It’s baked right into his DNA, and honestly? That upbringing didn't help one bit either...

So, Alex is basically the main man in *A Clockwork Orange*. And honestly? Yeah, he’s totally programmed from the jump. But even with all that extra brainwashing stuff they throw at him, it barely touches his actual will... I mean, it's like nothing more than a tiny little wasp sting to him...

So, I was just thinking about those little kitchen helpers—you know, the ones we call servantes? Honestly, they’re such a lifesaver when you're trying to keep things organized during a massive Sunday brunch or something... Just having that extra surface area makes everything feel so much smoother! It’s like having a tiny assistant right there on the counter... total game changer for anyone who loves to cook without the chaos... kaže:
Look, I totally get the definition! I really do...
So, I've been chewing on this idea...
Look, if there’s actually some kind of master algorithm out there—you know, a code that can predict exactly how anything behaves because it’s baked right into the core of what we call life... then free will is basically a myth. It just wouldn't exist. Everything would be predetermined... totally scripted...
Look, here’s the thing... if there isn’t some kind of underlying algorithmic code driving everything, then yeah, maybe free will is a real thing. But if that’s the case, then what we call "life" basically ceases to exist. It's a total paradox! Like, how does that even work??????
So, basically, when we talk about free will, we’re really just talking about degrees, right? It’s like a sliding scale... and honestly, I feel like we're the ones drawing those lines ourselves. Because, if I'm following your logic, you're looking at free will as this thing that happens after we make a rational choice—regardless of whatever crazy chain reaction actually triggered that decision in the first place...
So, if we’re assuming that free will only exists because we have reason, then we could basically circle back to the start of this whole thing and say that reason is the total opposite of a program... right? Is that really how it works though? I mean... maybe...

No way! My biggest gripe with all those people out there preaching about free will is that absolutely nobody actually gets it... How's it going?... It’s all about the will making those calls. Honestly, "reason" is just some arbitrary label we slap on things, kind of like how people toss around the word "freedom"—it's such a vague, empty descriptor that doesn't actually tell you much. So, what even counts as an irrational will or an irrational decision? Can you actually show me the difference...?

Honestly, all we’re ever really doing is making moves based on whatever half-baked info we happen to have on hand at the moment... It’s kind of wild when you think about it! There isn't even a massive difference between acting smart and acting totally reckless. We all just hide behind our own logic, pretending we’ve got it all figured out by listing off all those specific variables that led to the choice (you know, our "knowledge") and how we actually landed on it—whether that process was super calculated or just completely random... It's all just a bit of a facade!

So, you're asking how the lack of an algorithm somehow proves life isn't real? That's a wild one... seriously! Like, where do we even start with that logic? It’s such a trip to think about... honestly! If you're looking at the universe like it's just a bunch of math or some giant computer program, then yeah, I get why someone would say if there's no code, there's no "player." But man, that's such a narrow way to look at things! Life isn't just lines of code running on a server somewhere... it's messy, it's loud, and it's totally unpredictable! Even if there wasn't a pre-set script or some master algorithm guiding every single atom, that doesn't mean we aren't actually *here* feeling everything. Reality doesn't need a formula to be valid... it just exists! It's all about the experience, right? Just pure, unscripted chaos... and honestly, that's the best part!

But you’re still totally failing to justify why freedom even matters in this whole debate! Like, seriously... We have will, that's just an obvious fact at this point. But what does "freedom" actually add to the equation? It doesn't change anything! And hey, we could just as easily say we have "graceful will" and it would be just as logical. Because let's be real—human nature isn't some fixed, unchangeable thing, and saying someone "can" do something doesn't mean any more than just saying "I'm thinking about doing something"...

You're dead wrong. Reason is the prerequisite for free will. Without reason, you're just looking at pure determinism. That’s exactly why Kant rejects metaphysics. You can explain everything through determinism except for reason itself.
Maybe free will is just a crude approximation of determinism. Like shadows on the wall in Plato's cave?