In my previous article, The Ontology Gap in Free Will, we can conclude as shown in the table below:
At some point, humans are not free. However, if we use the law of logic to examine the issue further, we can find that, within a logical system, humans can indeed be free. For example:
Entailment
In classical logic, entailment reflects a strict logical relationship: If P then Q (P ⊨ Q), period. However, in specific cases, we also encounter ~P but Q because by default, whatever the result, the conclusion must follow the default.
In undefined cases, it happens because we sometimes view it from a real-world problem. For example:
As we can see, the undefined occurs because the situation does not follow the default truth. However, in entailment, the result is still true because the conclusion, even with ~P, implies the default truth. Through this scenario, we can examine more deeply that, at some point, through logic entailment, humans can intervene to fail the default truth. For example, it may be raining, but the ground is not wet, possibly due to something covering the ground. This case is known as a counterexample, where P is true but Q is false.
In real life, a person may say they won’t attend a party if it is raining, but we, as humans, have the freedom to choose to attend the party even when it is raining. This reflects human free will — humans are not bound by logical entailment or implications. So, in the first table, we find that from several aspects, humans are not free by default. However, if we use logic, we can violate the default truth by creating a different scenario.
Transcendence and Free Will
Moreover, if we use a Venn diagram to examine consciousness, free will, and logic, we can see that human reasoning is implicitly transcendent. For example, if someone tries to postulate that humans are not free and that our consciousness is purely material, then that person has violated the law of logic. The hypothesis that consciousness is not transcendent is quite absurd, as we are using logic — which is fundamentally transcendent — to argue that consciousness itself is not transcendent. In this scenario, the person has disobeyed the rules of logic, and this violation implicitly suggests that we are free, and we are wrong in our freedom to violate the rule. Hence, it strongly implies that humans do have free will to choose.
However, the next question might be harder: What is the ultimate truth? Why we can surpass the law of logic, yet still be within a logic system? So, from an ontological view, are humans free or not free?
