[naasking]

> I still see no possibility of the classical idea of free will there.

That's because you're mistaken that the classical version of free will requires the ability to do otherwise in the sense of making different choices after rewinding time.

Consider what that actually means: an outcome that is different every time you sample it, even going back in time, is classified as a random phenomena. That's not what free will means, classically. Where is the will if your choices are random?

Furthermore, the Frankfurt cases debunked this old notion of the principle of alternate possibilities back in the 60s. Sam Harris is simply mistaken about the applicability of this principle.