Jabba, at the very beginning of your doomed long-term attempt to prove something using your deeply improbable existence, I told you more or less the following:
Your formula is entirely subjective. It's subjectivity doesn't make it invalid. But it does mean it cannot be used to prove anything to anyone other than yourself.
I'll try one more time, using a real-world anecdotal example.
I once told a Nevada Gaming Commission agent that I was convinced there was a significant number of cheating dealers at the blackjack tables. I had played hundreds of thousands of hands, using a strategy that had a known mathematical expectation. I had kept track of my results. I had found that my losses varied from the mathematical expectation to such an extent that statistical testing concluded, with near certainty, that a significant amount of dealer cheating was occurring, based on my results. (A "significant" amount of dealer cheating wouldn't be a lot, BTW. A little dab of dealer cheating will do ya.)
The agent told me that nobody ever complained to him about their excessively improbable winnings. The only people who ever came to him were those who had suffered excessively improbable losses. I was therefore, from his perspective, a a member of a biased sample.
I was impressed with his understanding of probability. However, as I pointed out to him, I was only a biased sample from his perspective. I was not a biased sample from my own perspective. I pointed out that, from my perspective, it was correct for me to view my results as typical, particularly given the large size of my sample. Which, from my perspective, strongly indicated that there was a significant amount of dealer cheating occurring.
But I did not rely on sampling alone. I also had a hypothesis on how the cheating was being done. I briefly explained the mechanics of "preferential shuffling" to the agent.
The agent didn't even bother to deny that a significant amount of preferential shuffling was occurring. He simply pointed out that it is "legal" for a dealer to shuffle the cards at any time.
I called it "legalized cheating". That's pretty much where the discussion ended.
The point is that (apparently unbeknownst to most participants of this thread), perspective matters a great deal in probability. From the agent's perspective, I was very probably a member of a biased sample. But not so from my perspective. My correct default assumption was that my results were typical. My sample size was large, and pointed strongly toward significant dealer cheating. Furthermore, I knew how it could be done, legally, with hardly anyone (except an occasional card counter) ever noticing.
In much the same sense, Jabba, the highly improbable existence of your specific body will never be viewed by your interlocutors as any more significant than the existence of some random dust mote in a distant galaxy.
That doesn't mean your body's existence is not significant - to you. Your body's existence may well be deeply significant - to you. Your specific body's existence just might mean something, to you, though you might not ever figure out what it really means.
It's just that you can't use your body's existence to prove anything to anyone else. Well, not any of the people you're arguing with here, at least. This crowd is itself a biased sample. These are all people who don't see anything suspicious about their own deeply improbable existence.
They are, however, correct in not seeing anything suspicious about your deeply improbable existence - from their perspective.
