That's quite some fish, conceptualizing about what's beyond the aquarium and how to get there, which would mean that fish is absolutely not free to swim in it forever because it is being pushed out by an innate drive for discovery and betterment - a basis for evolution. Is it free will that makes the fish jump out, topple or shatter the aquarium? Fish occasionally do this, too.
An example of this strange behaviour on a cellular level would be some cell with a basic function and form befitting it, suddenly deciding to become a cancer cell (or a protein becoming a prion on an even smaller scale). That cell then starts growing abnormally ignoring all the "rules" and failsafes of the system, triggers a cascade of events which results in the death of the host system. If that host is a human president, for instance, this could lead to a red button being pushed somewhere, which could result in.... and so on and so forth.
Where does the original cell's decision originate, the one of becoming a prion or a cancerous cell aka not following a function? We know the "how", but we don't know the "why".
On a chemical level this question seems like an equivalent of Hydroperoxyl formation where H2O + O2 = HO2 + OH. We can see in the formula how HO2 formed, but the reaction almost never follows that formula in reality. The question is WHY HO2 is sometimes produced, but not "normally"? Our current system's answer is that, in short, it's random, which means the system is self-contradictory. If it's random, then it's not pre-determined = there's free will involved there somewhere.
What's missing? Okay, suppose the randomness is not random, it just means there's at least another factor X beyond our comprehension affecting the equation, which means the "debate" on free will is far from scientific and having any "conclusions" on it is much too premature. Why does H2O + O2 SOMETIMES equate to HO2 + OH, but most of the time it doesn't? Coincidentally, knowing the answer would allow us to stop and reverse aging on a chemical level, "un-cancer" cells etc.
And how ironical would it be to disprove the existence of free will in this way - by becoming immortal with nothing left to live for, in which case "disproving free will" triggered a self-destruction sequence, a failsafe. The existence of this failsafe, however, would mean we were "not meant" to discover the boundaries of the "not-so-free" will, which, in turn, would be an application and proof of free will (disproving free will would be an act of free will in this case). Double irony. And then there's a very high chance of the failure of the failsafe, just like it fails in cancer and prion diseases... We would have to self-impose a greater irritant than death to pull that off, but it seems doable.
My conclusion: I call BS on anyone claiming "there's no free will" or the opposite in 2022. For the reasons I've mentioned above (but not limited to), our understanding is still too primitive to make any conclusions at this time and we didn't move an inch since 2017 when the thread was started. But it's nice to have some reference points.