Have you read the book? He spends a whole chapter on this (and for the record, my background includes a Physics degree). The gist of his argument, which he does a reasonably good job backing up, is that quantum effects just don't scale up to the level to affect change to even a single neuron. The other thing, which he doesn't really explicitly call out but is how I think of it: when we talk about "determinism", there are two very different things. One is what his book is about, sort of the more moral philosophy version, which is whether there's really any sense of "free will" as some definable thing that is separate from all the factors that allows us to make decisions truly contrary to our environment. The other, which is more what I'm used to from physics is the idea that if you had a gigantic computer and input all the the state of the universe that you could calculate future states. On that one, I agree that the universe isn't deterministic (even with the hypothetical infinitely large computer, unless Heisenberg's wrong, you simply couldn't measure both the position and momentum of even a single particle to high enough precision, let alone the entire universe). Yes, you could come up with a thought experiment where, eg, Schrödinger's cat style, you make some single quantum event observable and produce a significant effect. That would make things non-deterministic in the sense that you couldn't pre-calculate the effects. But it doesn't really change anything wrt to the free will argument; a person is still effectively mechanically responding to the environment, which might include non-deterministic events.
Anyway, back to the question of whether you've read the book and are criticizing the arguments that it actually makes or are you just reacting reflexively to an imaginary argument based on the title and second-hand descriptions?
Quantum effects do scale. The randomness doesn't disappear it must have an effect. Either we haven't found it, have falsely attributed it to other effects, or can't measure it.
If you own the simulation then youre not limited in measurement. We are limited because we cannot measure without interaction.
Have you read the book's discussion of this? Again, I encourage you to engage the actual arguments that the book makes rather than an imagined straw man version of what Sapolsky might be saying.
Anyway, back to the question of whether you've read the book and are criticizing the arguments that it actually makes or are you just reacting reflexively to an imaginary argument based on the title and second-hand descriptions?