If you preclude the existence of a deity of any kind, isn't this an issue of Physics, i.e. whether you stick to the Copenhagen interpretation or not?

cheers

I think, for the sake of argument, that Free Will should be define as choices made by one conscious being (Mr. A) without any other conscious beings (Mr. B et al.) consciously and willingly taking actions to affect Mr. A's choice.

For example, the solution of Dutchmen pissing out of aim in urinals and wetting the general area being solved by authorities painting a black dot on the urinal, prompting the Dutch pissers to unconsciously aim at it. This, in a sense, abrogates their Free Will since there are other beings consciously guiding them to a choice.

However, there is the issue of inevitability. A whole slew of events can lead to near inevitable choices (that is, a high probability of being taken). E.g. a host of actions taken by other individuals giving you little choice but to take a certain action. This may not be triggered by any single individual's conscious actions to influence your choice, but nonetheless the confluence of many other choices leads you into near-inevitability.

One may rightly question whether this constitutes Free Will or not.

cheers