Still, they represent concerns that I think might be of general interest to those with a least a beginning grasp of the real conceptual and methodological problem being raised. Some are well worth it, but heading off on one's own in science is inherently hazardous. Scientific ideas normally evolve through extensive interaction with others. Independent explorers may then produce nothing but interesting isolated explorations, if that. Then, there are a few others.
Determinism fails terminally, interminably, bogging down in the details every time.
As a result deterministic models are all but perfectly indeterminant, like weather prediction models which allways need to recalibrate every time they are run. The one possiblity that allows determinism to survive, in logic at least, is the possibility of everything having, inherently and unknowably, some absolute certainty. Things still seem individually very certain, even if the proposition of absolute certainty violates everything we know about the details, and requires a totally unsupported major leap of faith. The certainty of familiar things is no illusion, just not the result of controlling circumstances. Nature simply does not develop an 'intention' and then seek to bring it about by means of 'control', only we do that.