I think you are vastly underestimating the number of collisions required to get an enzyme binding event. We did a back of the envelope calculation in grad school and it was something like >> 10^6 ~ 10^9.
And you can of course do macroscopic things like this:
It's wildly nonintuitive that this manages to happen. Maybe you're right, and it can be explained by the numbers being so tremendously large that they break intuition without the need to import any nonintuitive quantum weirdness.
But if so, isn't such an explanation problematic in its own right? It banishes:
> The quantum world is impossibly nonintuitive, and it's having an effect
in favor of
> The scales here are impossibly nonintuitive, and that's having an effect
Like... we're still shoving the explanation under a rug, it's just now it's a different rug. Either the quantum effects explanation or the large numbers explanation needs further development before we can call this phenomenon adequately explained, and rather than doing that development it seems like the whole field is dedicated to championing their favored side as-is.
Nature is under no obligation to make explanations trivial to a human brain conditioned on quotidian macroscopic observation. Doesn't mean you have to appeal to quantum woo. We know more or less how much "quantum mechanics" (for some definition of QM, obviously an electron shell is QM, but for all intents and purposes you can just treat it as a classical ball that does a few weird things like bonding) contributes, to, say reaction rates. It's nonzero. It's nearly zero, though.
> It leads to improved decision making, experimental design, etc
It does not. It often does the exact opposite.