I now think that my problem with Rainier is that the given is unclear.
Your problem with the Mt. Ranier analogy is that you keep trying to muddy up the given so that it looks like a false analogy, which it is not. The given is the same in both cases, which is why the analogy works. The given is that starting from predictable first principles and applying complex natural law (which, in both cases, embodies strong aspects of nonlinear behavior) does not allow you to predict the outcome to any useful degree.
If we start with the singularity before the big bang, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually zero.
But that's not where you start your "I'm a special snowflake" line of reasoning. You presume the existence and stability of certain physical laws. You note that even with those laws in such a stable place that probability can take hold upon them, there is still enough nonlinearity and unpredictability in the system to make any one predetermined outcome virtually impossible.
If we start with the natural laws of science governing geology, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually one.
That's equivalent in the analogy to saying if we start with the natural laws of science governing biology and human interaction, the likelihood of you-the-way-you-are is virtually one. And the appearance of Mt. Ranier is governed by more than just geology. Meteorology also matters. And if you think meteorology is not the embodiment of a complex nonlinear system, you're in for a shock.
You make a big point of the improbable sequence of events that produced this one You, any one of which events could have gone differently on a whim and produced an entirely different person with, presumably, an entirely different consciousness. That's the description of a complex nonlinear system, no different from geology or meteorology. This you say makes your present existence highly improbable, and this near impossibility is the driving figure in your pseudo-mathematics. But when the same mechanics of complex nonlinear systems is applied to a different problem, you want to sweep
its complexity under the rug and simply declare
that present existence virtually certain.
That's a blatant double standard. Your whimsical differentiation amounts to once more begging the question of you as a special snowflake despite all evidence and analogy to the contrary. You can't grasp tightly to complexity in one case, ignore it in another case, and proffer as your excuse the naked claim that the given is "unclear."
If that doesn't make sense to you (and, I suspect that it won't), I'll try to explain.
Your "explanations" are simply different expressions of the same double standard. This is your third or fourth try at foisting one of those, and none of them have worked so far. It isn't a matter of you being unable to express yourself or your critics' not grasping your point. We understand quite well what you're trying to show. You just can't grasp that it's special pleading.
