Is it just me or does the article seem to end rather abruptly as if much more was intended and perhaps accidentally left off or just published before completion?
Funny how we want to take an incredibly complex system and boil it down to 1+1=2. We think we're really advanced when we throw in 3rd or 4th step into the math equation. But not surprisingly this sort of reductionism leads to people being equally certain of exactly opposite conclusions. To the point they'll belittle the other person's simplistic understanding while completely missing the simplicity of their own model.
I think when it comes to evaluating true novelty we underestimate how much our language does our thinking for us. Which is another reason why novel ideas hide from us so well. To put them into articulated forms that can be carried through time effectively (even to communicate them to later versions of ourselves) we have to bend the meanings of the words we're using in novel ways. Not easy to do but essential to an idea's survival.
Quite apart from the math and science of deterministic physics and probabilistic quantum physics, there's a broader evolutionary question.
Why would we evolve this hallucination that we have free will, if in fact we fundamentally don't? It seems like a lot of effort and metabolic energy on a moment-by-moment basis to maintain the illusion. I guess you could make an argument we're in some sort of simulation the maker of which required this illusion to be present for reasons of their own.
But the conscious awareness of our moment-by-moment availability of choice is one of the most difficult things to deny even if you're incredibly skeptical about everything else you can observe through the senses (a la descartes).