Refuting Murphy's Law

Logic cannot change, but physical and psychological circumstances can.  Some of these circumstances involve great pain, chaos, and dangers.  Sometimes these harmful things become part of our lives and sometimes they do not.  Murphy's Law, the idea that everything that could go wrong will, ultimately contradicts this when regarded in its broadest sense.  Of course, as with a great many things, Murphy's Law may not be communicated very precisely, so it is probably very rare for a conversation, article, or book to clarify the scope of what is meant with a great deal of specificity.  This needs to be addressed early on if people are not already familiar with the exact nature of what they mean.

On a conceptual level, one must already know exactly what is being referred to as something "going wrong," lest a simple question about definitions in a conversation about Murphy's Law be all that is necessary to uproot someone's entire position on the matter.  Even so, it is actually very easy to disprove the core of Murphy's Law no matter how specific the disaster is specified to be.  At best, someone in favor of the "law" would have to hold or at least pretend that the laws of physics will remain uniform in the future by some sort of logical necessity, which is very much not the case.  No scientific law in a given variant could not have been different or could not change later on.

With this part already tackled, Murphy's Law loses all pretense of logical necessity and loses its supposedly scientific side.  Without this, the most someone could rationally say or believe is that if something could go wrong, it might or might not go wrong--a far cry from what Murphy's Law is supposed to refer to.  The sun could have been vaporized so that I see no light outside right now, but that has not happened (unless my visual perceptions of light are unrelated to actual stimuli).  The water I last drank could have been poisoned so that I would not live to reach this moment, but that has not happened.  Dangers and inconveniences that are logically possible do not have to come to pass.

It is logically possible for my legs to suddenly stop working several moments after writing this--it is logically possible for them to give out at this very moment, in fact.  It is also possible for my breathing to be difficult and painful, for moving my arms even slightly to cause extreme agony, and for my mind to be ablaze with emotions more unwanted than any I have experienced before because none of these things has a conceptual contradiction in it.  Only a fool would believe any of these things are not possible, meaning only a fool would think the affected aspects of my life cannot "go wrong."  If even one thing that could go wrong does not, then Murphy's Law in its strictest sense is easily disproven by every waking moment of my life.

Murphy's Law in its totality is something I likely would have never thought of as a concept left to myself, but I certainly know that it is objectively false thanks to logic and immediate experience.  The only way to salvage it as an idea is to drastically limit the scope of what is meant by something going wrong, but that already entails recognition that the possibility of something going wrong and those destructive or chaotic circumstances actually coming about are so clearly different.  Necessity does not follow from possibility alone.  Just because something could go wrong does not mean that it will or that it will go wrong to some particular extent.