It's not disproven either. When you examine philosophical discussions of free will, you find the pivotal issue is, defining your terms. And, it is basically impossible to get the different groups to agree to define the same terms in the same way.
I like Nietzsche's analysis in Beyond Good & Evil.
"The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical
sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the
half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate
responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the
world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less
than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen
daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the
slough of nothingness."
And he concludes
"The 'un-free will' is mythology; in real life it is only a question
of stronger and weaker will."
The existence of gravity limiting our choices does not make us unfree. And the same for all the laws of physics. Because freedom is an experience not a fact, it is the experience of choice-making, in the face of our limited knowledge of the world, and of what the consequences of our choice will be. We know perfectly well that some people are slaves to their impulses, while others have developed skills to avoid cognitive biases, conditioning by experience, and coercion. We have a term for being relatively more free, and it is embedded in the core of the origin of philosophy, the term is wisdom. I describe it as the lived practice of finding the integrated centre of our concerns, towards developing the skill of solving dilemmas, here: Wisdom and John Vervaeke's awakening from the meaning crises?
No one argues that our freedom to act in the world is unlimited. But Sartre says:
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he
is responsible for everything he does."
-from his essay Existentialism and Human Emotions
This is in the sense that, we can imagine different futures from different actions, and so decide what kind of person we want to be and what kind of life we will live, based on what consequences we expect. It doesn't matter what physics says. We experience choice-making, and imagine consequences, and to pretend otherwise is to live in Sartre's Bad Faith.
I would caution those bent on a Determinist denial of free will, that 'predictable in principle' is a mirage. All the computing power on Earth can barely keep track of the quantum states in piece of matter the size of a tennis ball. And we know from quantum mechanics and relativity, that what information can be transmitted about one piece of matter to another, and what cannot, has real substantial consequences. Sequences of random quantum events rapidly become impossible to keep track of and predict, even with all the material of the known universe directed to such a task. So in what sense is such a prediction, part of our universe?
And yet, heuristics like character, might make pretty good predictions of a system too complex for our entire universe to keep track of. Like, a human building a nanomachine that could turn our galaxy into copies of the nanomachine all engaged in a computation. Physics alone cannot be used to determine the future of our universe, from within it. We have to accept other heuristic explanatory layers like 'intentions', where agents make choices, because they have a great deal of explanatory power to account for events which physics conducted in our universe cannot.