This section is less worked out than basic SDFW and not axiomatized. That's why it was best to start simple.
Here are some examples of it being good to have more choices.
``I'll take my car to work today rather than bicycling so I can shop on the way home if I want to.''
``If you learn mathematics, you will more choice of scientific occupations''.
``The more money I have, the more models of car I can choose from.''
``If I escape from Cuba, I will have more choice of what to read, what I can say or write, and where to travel.''
We want to say that situation is at least as free as situation , written , if every fluent achievable by a single action from is achievable from . Just as with equation (1), we can say that chooses an action that leads to more freedom at the next situation.
Here ranges over fluents. Having more choices is usually preferred. However, one sometimes wants fewer choices. Burning one's bridges, nailing the flag to the mast, and promising to love until death do us part are examples of actions that reduce choices. The conditions under which this occurs are too difficult for me to formalize at present. They can involve fearing that one's preferences in the future might be different from one's present preferences for future actions or that making a commitment about one's future actions confers a present benefit.