You are alive, but none of the atoms that make you up are alive. You think, but none of the atoms that make you up think. You are free, but none of the atoms that make you up are free. Why are the first two sentences accepted, but the third is not?

Why suddenly it becomes "since the atoms that make you up are bounded by a set of fundamental laws of physics, so are you"?

Why not also "since the atoms that ake you up are bounded to a lifeless and unconscious existence, so are you"?

The behaviour of the atoms that make you up is governed by a set fundamental laws, but you do not behave like an atom; your behaviour is not described nor governed by the Born rule, the Schrödinger equation or path integrals, you don't spin or perform the slit experiment by showing particle-wave duality.

Why your decision-making ability should reflect and mirror the absence of it that characterize your atoms, and all the other emergent properties are allowed not to reflect and mirror the absence of them that characterize your atoms?

What is the criteria?