quantum indeterminacy doesn't negate macroscopic determinism (assuming that the brain doesn't follow the one-sidedness of physicalism), so i don't think that free will is achievable
What makes you say that? (in both senses of the question)
When it comes to free will, I believe that we're merely acting on instinct and responding to external stimulus based on our biological makeup.
Also, if we had real free will, we would be able to go back in time to change our decision(s). Because, once you make a decision, it's set in stone and has a domino effect.
For example: If you start a medication that affects your desire to eat less, you will eat less. Your desire to eat more or less is no longer controlled by your willpower or lack thereof. Again, this is based on biology or a drug you are taking that affects your biology.
The uncertainty principle plus chaotic interactions say no atomic determinism.
The fine details of neuroscience or psychology will be hard to predict from first principles, but the broad picture will be worked out.
On free will, if you are considering only one universe: Humans do not have complete free will. We are not free from our biology. Our actions are based on how we feel which is influenced by our genetics and environment, which conflicts with how many define free will. Genetics and the environment are beyond your control. If the universe repeated itself exactly as it did the first time up to that moment, you would
still choose the same option as you did the first time. Because every event that led up to that moment determined what you would choose despite having the "free will" to choose the other option, all other things considered. Your past experiences color what option you would naturally lean towards first.
It is a matter of degree. Even a bacterium has sufficient complexity to have something resembling free will, although to a much lesser extent than humans.
On a grand scale even humans don't choose place and time - we are on earth, now, and humanity just happened.
A mouse is even more restricted geographically, and a bacterium still more so.
But even a bacterium can choose to attack or retreat, to cooperate or compete, and balances conflicting signals in making its choice.
(If one argues that it is all decided by the interactions of molecules and so is not "choice", then that argument also applies to humans.)
Setting aside giant viruses, which are more complex than some bacteria, I haven't heard of individual viruses balancing conflicting signals in determining their actions, but in some sense a viral infection does this on a fast evolutionary time scale (on the order of days).