This whole subject is fraught with pitfalls. There are two dual issues, both of which are very slippery: 1. To what extent is our understanding of the relevant physics good enough to make definite conclusions, 2. To what extent can we pin down what we mean by free will.
I'll throw in a third issue as well: 3. What we know from the history of mathematics, is that even where our definitions and assumptions are quite rigorous, even the hunches of the best mathematicians are sometimes dead wrong. I'm a bit of a chauvinist here; if you haven't worked in math, or thought pretty deeply about it, you probably don't really know how easy it is to be dead wrong about something that seems clear to you. I'd put a lot of theoretical physicists in this category, by the way. Many of them seem to
thrive on public attention, writing popular books, and working with media producers, making exciting pronouncements about the world, with what is very likely unwarranted confidence.
As for 1., physics has taught us so far: a) our naive assumptions about the nature of the physical world, if there even is such a world, are quite unreliable, b) current theories in physics are incomplete, and known to be inconsistent, and therefore somewhat wrong at best, totally wrong at worst.
Despite this, many people argue with what I think is unwarranted confidence, as if they "know", at least roughly, how the future of physics going to work out. It's maybe a century or so that we've been able to explain why the sun is hot. Before that, we could easily argue, seemingly quite solidly, that no such thing as the sun could exist. A very detailed calculation of how much chemical energy the sun could possibly contain, could have been phrased in very technical, science-y terms, proving that the sun is a mere fiction. Yet, somehow, it always did seem to shine up there and give warmth. I have the same sense of these subjective experiences, like consciousness and free will. You can make an erudite argument why they can't exist based on crude arguments from physics know to be wrong ... yet ... there they are.
For this reason, I am unconvinced by arguments along the lines of "X can't be true, because physical theory Y contradicts it". In this category, I put arguments about what is supposedly impossible about the physical brain, an organ about which we have much to learn. In particular, there's a slowly growing list of biological phenomena believed to be "quantum" in nature, including photosynthesis, the sense of smell, and the navigational sense of migratory birds, among others. If you think you "know" what can and can't happen inside an organ we don't understand, built out of biology that only gets more surprising and more complex the closer we look, because of physical theories known to be wrong, I'd caution not to take yourself too very seriously.
The second issue, is even more troublesome. Verbal definitions can express certain kinds of logical relationships. My hunch is that phenomena like free will, are outside its expressive capabilities. Give me the precise definition of free will. I haven't seen such a definition so far. The same problem vexes such basic questions as "What is energy?", "What is matter?", "What is a force?", "What is a measurement?", "What is an action?", "What is the relationship between a physical law and the physical world?" Etc. We don't even have a stab in the dark at these things, as far as I'm aware.
And ... if we don't have something like free will, we don't really have science as most people understand it, because we can't do an experiment in any real sense. The scientist in the lab is just a bunch of matter bouncing around, their though processes are a bunch of matter bouncing around, and it's trivial to construct theoretical universes where the scientific theories of such bouncing around matter, are totally inconsistent with the actual workings of the universe they are in.
