The fixed point functors of Free and Cofree
Since you asked about the structure of the fixed points of Free, I'm going to sketch an informal argument that Free only has one fixed point which is a Functor, namely the type
newtype FixFree a = C (Free FixFree a)
that Reid Barton described. Indeed, I make a somewhat stronger claim. Let's start with a few pieces:
newtype Fix f a = Fix (f (Fix f) a)
instance Functor (f (Fix f)) => Functor (Fix f) where
fmap f (Fix x) = Fix (fmap f x)
-- This is basically `MFunctor` from `Control.Monad.Morph`
class FFunctor (g :: (* -> *) -> * -> *) where
hoistF :: Functor f => (forall a . f a -> f' a) -> g f b -> g f' b
Notably,
instance FFunctor Free where
hoistF _f (Pure a) = Pure a
hoistF f (Free fffa) = Free . f . fmap (hoistF f) $ fffa
Then
fToFixG :: (Functor f, FFunctor g) => (forall a . f a -> g f a) -> f a -> Fix g a
fToFixG fToG fa = Fix $ hoistF (fToFixG fToG) $ fToG fa
fixGToF :: forall f b (g :: (* -> *) -> * -> *) .
(FFunctor g, Functor (g (Fix g)))
=> (forall a . g f a -> f a) -> Fix g b -> f b
fixGToF gToF (Fix ga) = gToF $ hoistF (fixGToF gToF) ga
If I'm not mistaken (which I could be), passing each side of an isomorphism between f and g f to each of these functions will yield each side of an isomorphism between f and Fix g. Substituting Free for g will demonstrate the claim. This argument is very hand-wavey, of course, because Haskell is inconsistent.
Your observation that Empty is a fixed point of Cofree (which is not really true in Haskell, but I guess you want to work in some model that ignores ⊥, like Set) boils down to the fact that
there is a set E (the empty set) such that for every set X, the projection p₂ : X × E -> E is an isomorphism.
We could say in this situation that E is an absorbing object for the product. We can replace the word “set” by “object of C” for any category C with products, and we get a statement about C that may or may not be true. For Set, it happens to be true.
If we pick C = Setop, which also has products (because Set has coproducts), and then dualize the language to talk about sets again, we get the statement
there is a set F such that for every set Y, the inclusion i₂ : F -> Y + F is an isomorphism.
Obviously, this statement is not true for any set F (we can pick any non-empty set Y as a counterexample for any F). No surprise there, after all Setop is a different category from Set.
So, we won't get a “trivial fixed point” of Free in the same way we got one for Cofree, because Setop is qualitatively different from Set. The initial object of Set is an absorbing element for the product, but the terminal object of Set is not an absorbing object for the coproduct.
If I may get on my soapbox for a moment:
There is much discussion among Haskell programmers about which constructions are the “duals” of which other constructions. Most of this is in a formal sense meaningless, because in category theory dualizing a construction works like this:
Suppose I have a construction which I can perform on any category C (or any category with certain extra structure and/or properties). Then the dual construction on a category C is the original construction on the opposite category Cop (which had better have the extra structure and properties we needed, if any).
For example: The notion of products makes sense in any category C (though products might not always exist), via the universal property defining products. To get a dual notion of coproducts in C we should ask what are the products in Cop, and we have just defined what products are in any category, so this notion makes sense.
The trouble with applying duality to the setting of Haskell is that the Haskell language prefers overwhelmingly to talk about just one category, Hask, in which we do our constructions. This causes two problems for talking about duality:
To obtain the dual of a construction as described above, I am supposed to be able to be able to do the construction in any category, or at least any category of a particular form. So we must first generalize the construction that, typically, we have only done in the category Hask to a larger class of categories. (And having done so, there are plenty of other interesting categories we could potentially interpret the resulting notion in besides Haskop, such as Kleisli categories of monads.)
The category Hask enjoys many special properties which can be summarized by saying that (ignoring
⊥) Hask is a cartesian closed category. For example, this implies that the initial object is an absorbing object for the product. Haskop does not have these properties, which means that the generalized notion may not make sense in Haskop; and it can also mean that two notions which happened to be equivalent in Hask are distinct in general, and have different duals.
For an example of the latter, take lenses. In Hask they can be constructed in a number of ways; two ways are in terms of getter/setter pairs and as coalgebras for the costate comonad. The former generalizes to categories with products and the second to categories enriched in a particular way over Hask. If we apply the former construction to Haskop then we get out prisms, but if we apply the latter construction to Haskop then we get algebras for the state monad and these are not the same thing.
A more familiar example might be comonads: starting from the Haskell-centric presentation
return :: a -> m a
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
some insight seems to be needed to determine which arrows to reverse to obtain
extract :: w a -> a
extend :: w a -> (w b -> a) -> w b
The point is that it would have been much easier to start from join :: m (m a) -> m a instead of (>>=); but finding this alternative presentation (equivalent due to special features of Hask) is a creative process, not a mechanical one.
In a question like yours, and many others like it, where it is pretty clear what sense of dual is intended, there's still absolutely no reason to expect a priori that the dual construction will actually exist or have the same properties as the original, because Haskop qualitatively behaves quite differently from Hask. A slogan might be
the theory of categories is self-dual, but the theory of any particular category is not!