These are not forces. They are philosophical concepts.
My understanding is based on conclusions such as
Did you read the sources (i.e., not just the science magazine review of Tegmark's study, but Tegmark's study itself)? Tegmark's study came out in 2000, in the journal
Physics Review E (Vol. 61 no. 4). And his central argument, as he states, is a particular model of neurons/neural activity:"In this analysis, the object is the neuron, and the superposition will be destroyed by any interaction with other (environment) degrees of freedom that is sensitive to where the ions are located" p. 4197.
However, there are issues with Tegmark's description of neural activity (some are merely the result of the study being over a decade old) as well as his use of decoherence. We don't even have to switch journals. The obvious place to start would by the reply to Tegmark in volume 65 by Hagan, Hameroff, and Tuszynski. But as it is Hameroff's model under attack, why not go with a neutral party? Volume 70 (2004) included a study by Rosa & Faber: "Quantum models of the mind: Are they compatible with environment decoherence?" The authors (like Tegmark) criticized the Penrose & Hameroff model and its account of coherence. However, they state:
"based on this difference,
we do not conclude, as Tegmark does, that the quantum approach to the brain problem is refuted if we use decoherence instead of gravitational collapse. The first point is that we must also consider the time for building coherence, while the system either remains relatively isolated to sustain coherence or there is no coherent collective state...Our result does not discard the conjecture that quantum theory can help us to understand the functioning of the brain, and maybe also to understand consciousness...
We still propose a new quantum model in the brain where the most important thing is the sequence of coherent states accumulating in the microtubule."
Then there's the issue of the change with the field of physics concerning quantum coherence: Tegmark got it wrong. In fact, a paper published from the 2011
Journal of Physics conference not only criticizes Tegmark's analysis, but proposes several components of biological systems which rely on quantum coherence. In the paper ("Plausibility of quantum coherent states in biological systems" by V Salari, J Tuszynski, M Rahnama, G Bernroider), the authors state:
"Hagan et al. have shown that Tegmark used wrong assumptions for his investigation of MTs. Another main objection to the estimate in equation is that Tegmarks formula yields decoherence times that increase with temperature contrary to well-established physical laws and the behavior of quantum coherent states. In view of these (and other) problems in Tegmarks estimates, Hagan et al. assert that the values of quantities in Tegmarks relation are not correct and thus the decoherence time should be approximately 10^10 [ten to the tenth power] times larger leading to a ms range of values for typical decoherence times. According to Hagan et al., MTs in neurons could possibly avoid decoherence via several mechanisms for quantum processing to occur there."
Another paper ("Quantum mechanical aspects of cell microtubules: science fiction or realistic possibility?") published in the same volume (306) of the
Journal of Physics conference proceedings has more of the same:
"In view of this specific model, we are therefore in stark disagreement with the conclusions of Tegmark, i.e. that only classical physics is relevant for studying the energy and signal transfer in biological matter. Tegmark’s conclusions did not take proper account of the possible isolation against environmental interactions, which seems to occur inside certain regions of MT with appropriate geometry and properties."
In fact, in Kurita's paper "Indispensable role of quantum theory in the brain dynamics" (published in the peer-reviewed journal
BioSystems vol. 80, 2005) Tegmark's study in particular is heavily criticized as flawed.
I could go on and on here, as Tegmark's study has been critiqued by multiple authors in multiple fields in multiple sources and even types of sources (peer-reviewed papers, studies, monographs, and volumes).
Mark Balaguer's
Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem is reviewed
here. Among the many other observations the reviewer makes is this
"Balaguer is not committed to incompatibilism, because he doesn't claim that L-freedom is free will, yet given the central role of L-freedom in his theory the compatibility problem seems to matter. I can't help but think the project would be better placed within a compatibilist framework. Indeed, at the end of the review I argue that Balaguer is committed to compatibilism."
And your point? What did I quote him for? You spoke of determinism (which apparently you take to mean an ontological model of cause and effect). What I quoted was his statement about the fundamental indeterminism of the universe.
The remarks you quote by Wayne C. Myrvold, Yemima Ben-Menahem, and Bertuglia, C.S., & Vaio, F. are irrelevant, as is your
Again, you spoke of determinism.
They don't.
The truth is, we can only operate in the world as the forces of determinism have led us to operate.
Those quotes were simply two of many about the indeterministic nature of reality. if you wish to assert that everything is driven by determistic forces, then I would think you'd want your theory to incorporate modern physics and accounts of determinism.
And while your conclusion
"Determinism is largely a relic of a bygone age. Not that chaos theory and/or QM solve the issue of free will, of course, but why must we continually use outdated models of physics, systems, and the human brain when the issue of free will inevitably arises in another thread?"
is interesting, begging the question is not.
So, first you say that quoting experts on the issue of determinism and (among other things) physics is irrelevant, and then you say I'm "begging the question". So your account of determinism has no relationship with physics or models of determinism in the sciences? Otherwise, I can't see how the quotes are irrelevant.