Free will exists.

The typical argument against free will is idealistic and irrelevant. It assumes that past events, if repeated in the exact circumstances, would result in the exact same results, which is technically correct but irrelevant when discussing free will, because replaying an event with exact circumstances denies ambiguity or chance. If this framework were applied for a dice roll or coin flip, it would show that a dice or coin, when rolled or flipped in a certain way, factoring even precise, unstable factors, would result in one resolve in particular if repeated again and again. But this does not signify that chance or unpredictable factors do not exist. It is essentially a replay of a singular event. It assumes a time travel type of scenario, cementing decisions in place from the past tense, which already have been made and assumes it to be the cause of a lack of ambiguity. Why is ambiguity important here? Because human knowledge depends on empiricism, and in empiricism we cannot be absolutely unbiased, because as organisms we possess our own desires and our own evolved method of cognition. We cannot be absolutely certain of anything: Certainty as I say here is absolute. That one cause will always result in one effect. This can not in all cases be true, as it is only a part of human semantics. I am saying that we must accept that our frameworks were made for us as humans to understand something in the best of our own biological capacity to percieve, and that we must always assume falibility and bias as organisms. Truth, in this sense, is context dependent based on the frameworks in use.

Using the aforementioned framework to disprove free will is therefore an abstraction that ignores reality's inherent complexity in the present, as it refers to a linear event in the past tense. Ultimately, a decision made is the agent’s own, even if it were influenced or shaped by certain external factors.

I see the brain as imprinting external factors within itself but not being absolutely influenced by external factors. To put it simply, it takes photographs of scenes (experiences and perspectives) and the brain itself is the camera. The camera is still existent as its own, regardless of its previous states.