Can we generalize paticca samuppada?

I came across [this article](http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2010/12/general-theory-of-conditionality.html) by a long time contributor of this forum. In particular, the article mentioned a definition of paticca samuppada (PS) in [Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_p.htm) > 'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena, The article proceeded to attempt to position this as a general theory explaining the basis for all phenomena. **Qn 1:** Is there anything inherently wrong with generalizing dependent origination or PS into a theory of conditionality? FYI, there is a [post regarding the appropriateness of treating PS](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44729/difference-between-the-scientific-law-of-causality-and-the-buddhist-law-of-condi) as a law of conditionality. Note that in science, a law is a description of a phenomena (that is scientifically proven) while the article mentioned above is attempting for a general theory of conditionality i.e. to explain the why. (Although the article mentioned principle but I think we can forget it; I don’t think there is anyway to prove it scientifically). My question is not on the appropriateness as a law but instead as a general theory. Reason for my uncertainty is as follows: 1) PS was taught by the Buddha in the context of explaining the arising of suffering. 2) In general, physical phenomena have a certain range of possible outcomes. For example, a sapling may or may not grow into a tree or a forecasted rain may or may not occur. In fact, probability is the way to describe the quantum world. But the way PS is explained traditionally, *When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises* indicates a certainty in outcome, therefore: **Qn 2:** How can the certainty alluded in PS be reconciled with the probabilities in outcomes we see in reality? Personally, I am neither for nor against this generalization of PS into a theory of conditionality. Thanks for sharing of any insights.