User blog comment:VonGlusenburg/Alternate universes, probability and alternative outcomes/@comment-1375165-20120816052432/@comment-1375165-20120818172740

Whether macroscopic is relative or not, it's very specific that things at least bigger than a grain of sand will be deterministic. Infinitissimal probabilities like the ones you're relying on are too unlikely to take into account. You can reasonably wait trillions of trillions of years without even one of them coming about. And this is even if the indeterminism of quantum events is accepted, the verdict is still out on that (with indeterminism the less likely theory).

Statistic is one thing, but scientific laws aren't simply statistical conclusions. The laws of science are based on falsifiable conclusions from evidence so you're not wrong to say that the evidence is statistical but you say that like it makes scientific theories less reliable - and leaving out falsifiability arguably leaves out the most important factor in what makes scientific laws scientific.

Now, Guns, don't be ridiculous. It's absurd to ask for a logical proof of something empirical (like natural science). I'm equally willing to put my trust in the sun rising in the east as I am that 2+2=4, even if the one doesn't admit of logical proof, the "trustworthiness" (to put it simply) is no less for one than the other. Then again, you haven't been clear about what you're getting at by seemingly discrediting the reliability of science so maybe my response isn't what you're looking for.