>What I find somewhat counter intuitive is that, the more particles there are, the less our chances are that another version of us exist, I would have said it makes the chances bigger
Think of it like this:
If a human ("Joe") was just one particle, then the chances of the same human being recreated elsewhere would be 100%. As long as that particle is present, there's Joe.
If Joe was made of 100 particles, then the chances are less, because those 100 particles would have to be aligned/interact in the same way, which is much less probable.
Or maybe think of it like this: if you throw a dice, to get 6 is quite easy. You have 1 in 6 chances.
But if you throw 10 dice to get them all six is very very improbable (1/61/61/6*...).
Yes, the more particles Joe has, the less it is likely that it will be recreated elsewhere. But here I'm talking about particles not being Joe, the rest of the universe.
I see it this way, it doesn't matter that I get 10 times a 6 when throwing a dice, I just want a 6, I'm not concerned about the whole process, just about the result.
Aren't there many ways to get to a point where particles assemble to form a brain similar to our own?
Also, is it possible to ignore the vast majority of the universe, because is a dim light from a star so important, or do we have to, because of the butterfly effect?
Think of it like this:
If a human ("Joe") was just one particle, then the chances of the same human being recreated elsewhere would be 100%. As long as that particle is present, there's Joe.
If Joe was made of 100 particles, then the chances are less, because those 100 particles would have to be aligned/interact in the same way, which is much less probable.
Or maybe think of it like this: if you throw a dice, to get 6 is quite easy. You have 1 in 6 chances.
But if you throw 10 dice to get them all six is very very improbable (1/61/61/6*...).
Think of the particles like dice.