(I had to remove quotation marks from certain places as they did not display properly in the output). I have a problem with anything arising accidentally out of probability of it happening. Even the word probability represents a very nebulous concept.
It means that you might observe a phenomenon a certain number of times if you succeeded in replicating that exact circumstance 100 times. It really refers to no scientific theory, but, rather, to a statistical theory. You will observe something a number of times out of 100 (or even 10,000) if you were to be able to replicate the exact conditions over and over again.
Anything based on this is not a theory. It is merely an observation of facts, and then expressing the outcome in percentage terms. It has no predictive value, because predicting something (like the weather), is not really is scientific prediction. It merely tells you whether you ought to bother to bring an umbrella or not. Which is why our weather channel tells us we will get rain, and then there is none. NO predictive value.
Anything based on probability is not science. Just as predicting the weather is not science. Science is perfect (within margins of error).
Probability is not a principle. It is merely a summary of observations. Quantum Theory (Mechanics) is not really a theory. It does not explain and derive its conclusions from first principles. It only reports (after the fact) on the likelihood of certain events occurring.
If there were no causality (and perfect predictability), then you could not get a perfect half-life of (radioactive) particles. That very fact is ipso facto proof that there is a governing principle that decides when and which particles will disintegrate (releasing corresponding electromagnetic energy).
Now I do not actually believe in causality in its ordinary understanding, but that is another discussion not encumbering any of the above. It is a different principle, not in any way dependent on any uncertainty in the universe.
The universe knows what it is doing at all times, and does not need our feeble brains to tell it how to behave (so forget anthropomorphism and any other nonsense like multiverses and the like). I am not even convinced about expansion, but since I do not have any scientific evidence for nor against it, I will let that go for now.
The answer is staring us in the face, but we need another Einstein (and it will not be me; in fact, I guarantee it). But I will be able to tell who it is once I see what (s)he says.
[And, btw, the idea of (quantized) gravitons is laughable; gravity acts at infinite distances, far faster than any gravitons could muster.]
I will only answer responses that make sense to me. I may be wrong in everything, but I have to divide my time so it makes sense to me.