Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(37,279 posts)
Sun Dec 21, 2025, 01:56 PM Dec 21

Is President Jeffries in 2027 More Probable Than the Universe that Exists?

Last edited Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

One of the things I love to do is to muse how impossible I am, and in saying I'm impossible, I am not referring rhetorically to observable difficulties with my personality, not being metaphoric, but to my physical reality. Beyond the improbability that my parents would meet, that they would like each other, that they would fall in love, make love is the inconceivability that I would be the result of that particular act:

Human beings have 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs, and in meiosis, the formation of sex cells, just one chromosome from each pair is selected for an egg cell or sperm cell. The probability of selection for any one chromosome from any pair is, simply, 1 in 2. These events take place in 23 different probability spaces all converging on a single outcome, thus the probability of each sperm or egg cell existing is 1 in 223 = 8,388,608. If the cell is a sperm cell, even if we ignore, with justification, since all probabilities are equal, the probability that out of somewhere 50 to 400 million cells in an ejaculation, a particular sperm cell fertilizes any egg with a probability 1 in 8,388,608, we see that the probability of the particular genome resulting in a zygote, is 8,388,6082 = 7.03687 X 1013 where the significand is rounded to just 5 digits.

The happy outcome in which I met and fell in love with my wife, and she, ultimately with me, had its own improbability of which I am certainly aware, but even if we ignore that improbability (and believe me, it seemed improbable) the probability of each of us existing was one in 8,388,608 9 Ito the 4th power, 7.03687 X 1013 squared, or 4.95176 X 1027, the thus the probability of our first son, given our own improbable outcome of existing to become lovers, at least one in 3.48449 X 1041, and afterwards, the probability of my second son (the proposal for his existence at all requiring my wife to overcome my resistance to the idea of having a second child) multiplied by the low probability of the existing three of us, brings us up to one in 2.45199 X 1055, with again, where all the significands are rounded to just 5 digits.

That's just us.

On Christmas Day (when I'll be hanging out with Christian in laws who will not know I'm an atheist) the four of us will be sitting together, unaware of how improbable that our being always was, drinking spiked eggnog and chatting amiably in front of the gas fire place in a room filled with molecules, each of which, according to the laws of statistical mechanics first formulated by the statistically improbable Ludwig Boltzmann, will have a completely improbable set of velocity vectors.

The improbability of that situation almost boggles the imagination, since just 23 liters of air contains about 6 X 1023 molecules according to the ideal gas law. We could estimate that with more labor, and I'm going to guess that the probability would be less than 1 in the number of atoms in the Universe.

And that's what stimulated this rumination on my part, coming across, in my computer driven wanderings about the universe of literature, this paper:

Restrepo, G. Spaces of mathematical chemistry. Theory Biosci. 143, 237–251 (2024), which is free access and free to read.

It references this paper: Melvin M. Vopson; Estimation of the information contained in the visible matter of the universe. AIP Advances 1 October 2021; 11 (10): 105317

Restrepo (at the Max Planck Institute) suggests that Vopson's paper (and other earlier papers) imply that there are 7 X 1076 atoms in the universe, obviously a crude estimate, but a worthy estimate all the same. Each of those atoms is in a single instantaneous space wherein each has its own velocity vector, if in a molecule, it's own vibrational mode, its own electrical density.

All this was incredibly improbable, so improbable that one wonders how something like this can happen, but it did.

Now let's turn to more mundane realities.

It is vastly more probable than the universe that exists that the orange pedophile will die in office or be somehow deposed.

It is even vastly more probable than the universe that exists that the improbable United States on an improbable planet filled with improbable people will have a House of Representatives in 2027 that is overwhelmingly Democratic, that Congressman Jeffries will be the next Speaker of the House.

It is even vastly more probable than the universe that exists that the Senate will be filled with more Democrats than and include Republicans who have - as improbable as it seems - discovered enough decency (or be driven by enough fear of their irrelevance) in themselves to be disgusted not just by the orange pedophile but his disgusting Vice President become President, that stupid confused boy Vance - driven by the disaster that is vastly more probable than the universe that their terrible reign engendered, and the disgusting Vice President become President will be impeached before a locked Senate approves a new Vice President.

It is even vastly more probable than the universe that exists therefore that the Speaker of the House, as specified in a revived Constitution, will be President.

Improbable you say?

Nah, small potatoes compared to the existence of this moment in this improbable Universe.

Why all this wild speculation from me?

I'm an old fat fading atheist who wants to give a Christmas present (or Saturnian festival Present or Druid Solstice Present) to all of you, in appreciation of you all, being here, as you are, such as it is.

Accept it if you will, and never lose your dreams of a better world, as trivial as it may be in this improbable universe which nonetheless exists.

Persist.

Happy holidays.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

marble falls

(71,013 posts)
1. All bets are off till 2028! I don't see any real hopefuls except for Newsome. And usually the early front runner is ...
Sun Dec 21, 2025, 02:09 PM
Dec 21

... gone before the convention.

NNadir

(37,279 posts)
4. Ah, but you're discussing probable things; I am dreaming of the improbable things that by comparison become...
Sun Dec 21, 2025, 05:21 PM
Dec 21

...relatively probable.

Hopefully enough of the American Constitution will not be totally destroyed, and thus many of the people here, will be fighting with one another over who the nominee will be in 2028.

It's even possible I'll still be alive.

I think we'd all rather be complaining about President Harris's policies, comparatively trivial crap, but improbably an intellectually bankrupt orange pedophile has come to try to destroy our country and our way of life.

marble falls

(71,013 posts)
5. My only caveat to that is that if we knew what a shit TACO would have been we'd never have found anything ...
Sun Dec 21, 2025, 06:52 PM
Dec 21

... to complain about with President Harris!

jfz9580m

(16,573 posts)
7. I was musing along similar lines
Tue Jan 6, 2026, 07:59 AM
4 hrs ago

(Not the Hakeem Jeffries part ;-/..the low probability of all that exists..from the animals and plants ..and I mean yeah..humans)

Though sans the math. Thanks I am saving this -I meant to do that calculation at some point and then I didn’t. Melvin Vopson is interesting. His work is kinda cool. But then he had a weirdly Discovery Institute flavored thing that is maybe trolling? It didn’t fit with ..he had all this cool work.

I have been vaguely glancing at some qphys and it is confusing. (Btw apparently Schroedinger was a pedophile…his wiki page is pretty vomitous).

Then I saw something by Carlos Rovelli over the week-end that gave me a sense of relief. He seems cool in general:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli

In nature, variables are not independent; for instance, in any magnet, the two ends have opposite polarities. Knowing one amounts to knowing the other. So we can say that each end “has information” about the other. There is nothing mental in this; it is just a way of saying that there is a necessary relation between the polarities of the two ends. We say that there is "relative information" between two systems anytime the state of one is constrained by the state of the other. In this precise sense, physical systems may be said to have information about one another, with no need for a mind to play any role. Such "relative information" is ubiquitous in nature: The colour of the light carries information about the object the light has bounced from; a virus has information about the cell it may attach, and neurons have information about one another. Since the world is a knit tangle of interacting events, it teems with relative information. When this information is exploited for survival, extensively elaborated by our brain, and may be coded in a language understood by a community, it becomes mental, and it acquires the semantic weight that we commonly attribute to the notion of information. But the basic ingredient is down there in the physical world: physical correlation between distinct variables. The physical world is not a set of self-absorbed entities that do their selfish things. It is a tightly knitted net of relative information, where everybody's state reflects somebody else's state. We understand physical, chemical, biological, social, political, astrophysical, and cosmological systems in terms of these nets of relations, not in terms of individual behaviour. Physical relative information is a powerful basic concept for describing the world. Before “energy,” “matter,” or even “entity.”


This! Isn’t this the intuitive understanding of reality? Why would you need a mind or observer?

If there is a multiverse, I am convinced that we are in one of the worst. Otoh that means the rest don’t suck this much. On the third hand that means like the pacificist from 3-body, I’d want to tell all the other verses, “Hey don’t let us in. We are crazy and destroying this beautiful planet with misconceptions about everything and elect Trump and consider Musk a genius and should generally be this loutcast planet at the very least if possibly not the entire universe”. If there is intelligent life out there, clearly we earthlings would be shunned and quarantined based on factory farming, mass extinction, war, religion, inequality, our multitudes of ecological crises (of which climate change is just one of the most urgent), overpopulation, resource overexploitation, slavery, rape and mass incarceration alone. Or worse, it is all like us. At which point, the whole universe should be banned from everything else as this like Omelas building douchebag universe. Including me of course. I would rather stay in this shit than go and corrupt everything else that doesn’t suck that is out there oblivious to us.

It makes sense in a way. I am in the lowest percentile in hard science and I have wasted more time on entertainment than hard science and my life sucks, but I am less confused and surprised than most by the state of the world.

The largely imaginary success offered by junk fueled economies aside, I am way more typical than the hard scientists whose output matches the input going into such an expensive species.

I don’t mean btw that hard science is all that is real. But the other real stuff is corrupted, shut down even faster or exploited even faster (journalism, social science, activism, politics, literature, philosophy etc).

If humans have all this science and tech of a type but no concept of anything less superficial you would have a world that roughly looks like this one and it wouldn’t really matter that much if these largely interchangeable and shallow pseudo elites had a sort of superficial diversity or not.

That is sometimes the sole piece of identity that is easily accessible.

I have been thinking that memory is identity. Not just episodic memory which is relatively easy compared to semantic memory. Mine is lousy because I never trained it well. It explains a lot actually.

I saw this years ago (its pop, but the rare piece where I go, that really makes sense):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201712/looped-linear-thinking

If insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results, you can see why a stagnant, ahistorical global society like this stuck trying to repeat its greatest hits is going nuts. And why a ball of id like Trump succeeds (in accelerating destruction with public support, but then that is his goal) where expertise and knowledge fail.

I was also really struck by this piece:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/for-algorithms-a-little-memory-outweighs-a-lot-of-time-20250521/

I am trying to work out why everything sucks so much and I was reading Adam Becker’s books and Sam Miller MacDonald’s book.
It really makes sense that these lousy chatbots have the “smeared out voice of the internet”, as Becker puts it. If you are stuck interacting with such a thing after lousy human interactions, it would erode your sense of self.

That is why I think strong human semantic memory is the only real fix aside from real world action to pushback and kickout drivel.
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Is President Jeffries in ...