That's exactly the dilemma. You need to be able to define free will, which of itself is a difficulty, ie every action is preceded by thought, which itself may be a result of unconscious desires unknown to us. Unless we can separate the action from the thought can we determine free will? But lets think of it as a game of chess. Paradigm one would be the rules of the game, the pieces, the board all the variables and sets which are already defined. In that case, paradigm two would be the infinite combinations of unpredictable moves possible (without thought). However, in isolation neither is feasible and the probability of completing a game would be much more complicated. A combination of the two (with thought involved in the placement of pieces) on both sides, would reflect both the pattern (paradigm 1) and the free will (the moves would still be unpredictable and infinite to some extent). Again it depends on the definition of free will; one can separate freedom of action and freedom of will (they could, theoretically be mutually excusive, if our success in an action is determined by causes beyond our control, biological, social, psychological, etc). For example, the most common example of free will is moral responsibility. Do we have a choice where our moral actions are concerned? Those who advocate free will say yes, but what about causal sequences beyond our control? There is a true story about a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who is raped by a guard. Fearful of discovery (since the Nazi regime was homophobic), the guard took the prisoner's cap. Knowing full well that coming to roll call without a cap means certain death with a bullet in the brain, the prisoner stole the cap of another prisoner. The next day, during roll call, the second prisoner was shot dead. Was the first prisoner moral? Did he make a choice to take the cap? Is this free will? What would you define as "moral" in such a case?