Does free will exist?

A person is conditioned therefore free will does not exist. The exception would be to act not on one's will, but rather, on randomness. For example, instead of deciding on anything one would flip a coin and let chance decide for you. By giving up one's will and acting on randomness is the only free will because it is independent of personal conditioning.

If you are the person who places all of the dominoes and you know the extct starting position you should, in principle be able to predict the exact behaviour of the dominoes at any point in the future if you know which dominoes are pushed over and in what direction at the beginning.

If you had a god's eye perspective and you knew the exact position, trajectory and velocoty of each and every physical entity at the very beginning of this physical system known as our universe then you could, in principle, predict the precise position, trajectory and velocity of each and every physical entity up to the very end of the universe, if indeeed it even has an end.

To use the domino rally analogy, it would be akin to dominoes randomly popping into existence while the rally was under way. Whenever a new domino popped into existence, it would merely cause a re-write of the future, classical cause-and-effect history of the rally from that point.

if the laws of physics as we understand them are correct, free will simply cannot exist.

All this amounts to is that given adequate information an agent can make an adequate prediction. As this is a requirement for free will, it isn't an argument against the same.

You are now talking about determinism, whereas your analogy appealed to cause and effect. For your analogy to succeed, you'll also need a god's finger to push the first domino.

Other problems:
1) you haven't justified the assumption that the world had a beginning

2) you haven't justified the assumption that the world has an exact state

3) you haven't justified the assumption that the world is finite

4) Solomonoff has proved that exact predictions are uncomputable

5) you have overlooked the problem of mathematical randomness

6) you have overlooked irreversibility, and the rest of the reasons to reject determinism.You are confusing two notions of randomness and you're confusing cause and effect with determinism.If the laws of physics are correct, then determinism is false. It is a theorem that if scientists have the freedom to perform experiments, then libertarian free will is the case.

Generally: your argument is well known and has the form:
1) if determinism is true, then free will is false

2) if determinism is false, then free will is false

3) therefore free will is false.

The argument relies on two equivocations; premise 1 appeals to determinism but premise 2 appeals to cause and effect, and the hidden premises about randomness appeal to both intentional randomness and mathematical randomness.

1) in a determined world, there is no mathematical randomness

2) free will requires mathematical randomness

3) therefore, in a determined world there is no free will

4) in a world without cause and effect, there is only intentional randomness

5) in a world with only intentional randomness, there is no free will

6) therefore, in a world without cause and effect, there is no free will.

However:
7) in a non-determined world with cause and effect, there is mathematical randomness but not only intentional randomness

8) therefore, in a non-determined world with cause and effect, there is no objection (in your argument) to free will

9) as we live in a world which appears to:
a) be non-determined
b) include mathematical randomness
c) include causally effective agents
d) allow demonstrations of free will,
your argument fails as an objection to free will.

I merely indicate that according to the currently prevailing scientific views, from a classical perspective, an exact state is, in principle, predictable

My understanding is that for determinism to be the case, cause and effect are a prerequisite.

You're incorrect, the n-body problem is intractable.Cause and effect is incompatible with determinism for at least two reasons:
1) determinism is irreducibly global, cause and effect is irreducibly local
2) cause and effect are time asymmetric, determinism is time symmetric.

I note you have failed to provide any answers at all for the majority of my questions. This, I am bound to say, indicates that you are less interested in an intellectually honest debate and more interested in servicing your own psychological needs.

What is the "n-body" problem and why is it intractable?

Why is determinism irreducibly global?

Why is cause and effect irreducibly local?

Why is cause and effect time asymmetric?

Why is determinism time symmetric?

Answers to the rest of the questions put to you in my previous post would also be appreciated

What it indicates is that you asked more questions than I can be bothered answering. You're mistaken about the claims of both scientists and philosophers, and there's no point trying to talk about any of the rest until you have the basics.I'm not your private tutor, use Google.

I have made no assertion whatsoever about the claims of philosophers.

Determinism is a philosophical position.

You make the assertion that I am mistaken about the claims of both scientists and philosophers.

I am willing to defend my assertions about the claims of scientists since the assertions I have made are rather modest.

I have made no assertion whatsoever about the claims of philosophers. You've just made that up, basically.

If you consider there is no point in trying to explain your position, then why do you even bother to assert it?

Or is it, perhaps, that you have read only enough to string together a number of philosophical concepts in a sentence sufficient to superficially pass for intelligent understanding of those concepts. However, when pressed for clarification of them, you are reduced to obfuscation and ad-hominim rhetoric.

In other words, you either know what you are talking but do not with to share your knowledge in which case it is entirely illogical for you to engage in discussion forums such as this. Or you don't know what you are talking about, in which case you have other, covert psychological reasons/needs for being here.

As I said, your posts clearly indicate a desire to service your own psychological needs and have little if anything to do with the topic under discussion.

Which is a shame.

I take it you are one or more of the following:

male/young/socially inept/don't get out much?

Indeed it is. and the position, including it's definition, I have outlined is entirely mine.

Okay, you seem to be talking about cause and effect, not what philosophers mean by determinism, and not anything which conflicts with free will.

I recommend this discussion.