Actually you are wildly miscalculating what the standard model predicts, so you can't say that the fact you are here is impossible given the predictions of the standard model.
And what does the standard model predict? This is a good rough starting point:
http://www.rsvlts.com/2013/07/22/th...asically-zero-so-appreciate-that-infographic/
Basically zero. But not quite, so you are clinging to an infinitesimal smidgeon of non-zero expectation as a pathetic excuse to ignore how close it is to zero.
But that's not the probability that you exist, as the common misinterpretation goes. Presumably you do exist, so that value is 1. But what we often try unsuccessfully to inform these common misinterpreters about is the concept of 'expected value', which is fundamentally different than an observed value, and is one of the few concepts that makes probability useful, because it allows a comparison of expectation to observation. Without some concept of 'expected value' operative in your brain, you would be hard pressed to recognize an unlikely coincidence, for example, which would make you quite gullible in a poker game, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
But it would be a different Kansas, even if an exact duplicate, possibly because Kansas has a soul, self, sense of self, consciousness, experiencer (did it miss one?).
Actually, the only thing you missed was the point Jabba has been plugging away at since I can't remember when. To wit: No matter how many identical brains a finite or infinite universe creates, they're all different brains. In Jabba's way of thinking, this means their identities are not determined exclusively by their physical organization. Thus, Jabba reasons, the sum of all possible identities converges on infinitity, even though the sum of all possible physical organizations may be finite.
Just in case you may at any time become interested in addressing the actual argument. Who knows. Perhaps if you'd concede the point, Jabba might move on to his explanation of how that means immortality.
Fat chance, right? I could count the number of times I've ever seen any of you concede anything on the fingers of no hands.
Nevertheless, as foreign as the concept of conceding anything may be to you, it might be the only way to move the debate forward to it's undoubtedly glorious conclusion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the only way any debate ever moves forward.
...
But if we posit an infinitely large universe that exists for an infinite period of time, then the things science says about a finite universe would be wrong.
And what does science say about the universe?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articl...ed-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm
http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html
Also, time travel and the ability to make Cleopatra sexually interested in someone who wasn't the Emperor of Rome. It's all so simple!
Anyone with a genome identical to Cleopatra's would serve as well.
At any rate, it does not matter how many identical brains are created throughought the infinite, eternal multiverse. They're all different brains. Each exists at unique spacetime coordinates. Which, to Jabba's way of thinking, means their identities do not depend on their physical organization. Thus, Jabba reasons, the potential number of unique brain-generated identities converges on infinity, whether the universe is finite or not.
Stonewalling is a common pseudo-skeptic tactic. I'm assuming that's not what you are doing, which is why I'm bothering to remind you of other possibilities which may have slipped your mind.
