You pose a good argument. I will this argument a little further and speculate humans, on the whole, are not equipped to tease out the greater subtleties that may be inherent in nature's laws, that allow for greater variance than we appreciate. This is likely where we will need collaboration with AI. Machine learning has already advanced sufficiently enough that it is making discoveries humans didn't even know to be looking for, such as mapping out cells and discovering twice as many artifacts than previously known or even speculated about.

Maybe machine learning will catch the small, innocuous artifacts that get dismissed like, like people who pick up the phone to call someone only to have that someone already ringing in. Many people report it, and it is a measurable thing, we just haven't had the tech available to truly measure beyond anecdote. Now we do. Will we study it? Will we find the prevalence of it is greater than chance would allow? I don't know. I think there are enough anecdotes to suggest something is going on. There is actually enough research in psi to suggest greater than chance. It's limited research because there has been a reluctance by mainstream to look at data. At some point these scientists engaging in hobby explorations will get something peer reviewed, just like the scientists who said plants make audible noises. It took them awhile to get published because no one wanted to look, but once you demonstrate anyone with a microphone can duplicate the study, it had to be published. I wonder what AI in a forest would discover analyzing the sounds?

Thank you, Julian. You influenced my first speculative thoughts for the day! :)