So the problem of free will is the idea of ​​how choices can be free, knowing what you do in the future is already determined as true or false in the present. I'll either go to U of M in the fall, or I won't. If I go to U of M in the fall, nothing I do between now and then will stop me from attending. I don't have two equally available options: to go or not to go, so I'm not free at all regarding anything future. However, if philosophical reasoning seems to question something that you know to be true naturally, strongly, and intuitively, then you are right. The Law of the Excluded Middle can apply to future ideas only with a decision of uncertain truth that represents present tendencies, but modifiable by freely willed actions. So if I eat an apple for lunch every single day of my life and we wonder if I'll eat another apple tomorrow, then you can probably assume that I'll eat another apple tomorrow. However, unless I am forced against my will to eat this apple every single day, then there is still a chance that I could eat a banana. Routine does not imply