Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

Upon further reading, I think it bears greater clarification.

For future to be determined -
1. The past and current state must be determined (your point 1).
2. The fundamental laws should be able to determine the next instant - not just dictate how the next instant is determined. (Some amount of ambiguity in your second statement).

My position is very much that if you understand all the factors, you CAN determine the next instant.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe there are factors which cannot be determined which allow for a choice which is free from all causal factors.
I see no reason to see that our brains are able to transcend causation.

For example, consider this line of reasoning.

- The consequence of an action changes state of the universe from one instant to the next.
- The consequence of an action is not determined until the action is determined.
- Therefore, the future is not determined unless the action is determined.
- So, in order for future to be determined, the fundamental laws should be able to determine the action, not just how the action is determined.

If free will (as you conceptualize it) is one of the fundamental laws, then they would only be able to dictate how the next instant is determined (by the exercise of free-will) - not determine the next instant as well. Therefore, for these statements to conclude that the future is determined as well, you've already presumed that free-will is not a part of the natural law - thus making it a loaded question.

Incorrect, I do not conceptualise free will as a fundamental law, I conceptualise as a rationalisation of our inability to calculate the determining factors. There is no law of free will, and no free will, is my position. This should be clarified immediately.
In this I presume that free-will is not part of natural law? That is a presumption it exists at all, which is the entire discussion.
I can simply show, rationally and logically that the universe moves on in a stately fashion, including your biological body, no matter what this conceptual illusion of free will may trick you into believing.
There is no presumption of free will because the premise of argument is that there is no reason for it to exist. You are adding "Woo" to something that does not require it. You may WANT free will in the agents of change for the states of the universe in one instant to the next, but its pure speculation which contradicts what we DO know about the universe.

In order for you to show free will, you have to presume it exists equally. As is clear, it depends on our presumptions, and neither is a scientifically provable point. In my favour however, is that we can prove how we come to decisions, and it is nothing more than neuron activity and electrochemical memories and their reactions to external AND internal stimuli. There is nothing separate at all (and I tire of you claiming I am.. its obvious to anyone, I am not saying anything of the sort).

Without free will, the next instant in any given situation is wholly predictable.
I describe how I see the universe as working, and you have not refuted those assumptions. You have not refuted any description of how the mind works, the firing of neurons, recollection from electrochemical memories, and the reaction of such from external stimuli. All Natural. All incapable of being "willed" differently than you can will a ball from rolling down a hill.

There are exceptions when it comes to extreme macro and micro versions of fundamental laws, which shows we don't know everything, and I can quite easily be wrong. I don't claim to have the answers.
But your version states free will as a an agent which can redirect natural law down different avenues.

Which I do not accept at this point in time.

That is a loaded question, presuming there exists an agent which is capable of this, and egotistical to believe that you are such an agent.