What’s an invalid comparison?
" The likelihood of a particular complex situation having occurred somewhere in an infinite universe is always 100%. The likelihood of two particular people coinciding at a point in time - is nill - but exists."
^ I don’t know what you’re trying to say with that. What do you mean “the likelihood of two people coinciding at a point in time”? What do you mean “it’s nil but still exists”?
If consciousness IS computable, then the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true. My brain is just a mass of interacting particles- a very complex thing, but it is far less complex than an entire universe in which there exists trillions of other, equally complex brains in other organisms’ heads. Therefor it is more likely that a single brain containing all of my experience up to this moment in “time” spontaneously emerged from random fluctuations in the quantum foam than it is that a whole universe came to be out of the same, a universe containing a “reality” with a bunch of other independent brains in it.
As a matter of fact, if consciousness is computable, the quantum immortality hypothesis is true as well. When I die, I (and by “I”, I mean my consciousness) simply moves into a parallel world-line where whatever happened that led to my death in this universe, didn’t occur, with no seeming discontinuity from my perspective, as if I was deconstructed atomically in one universe and immediately reconstructed in the other,- though of course, everyone else left behind in the universe I died in sees that, well, I’m apparently dead.
Both of these ideas strike people as ridiculous even if they cannot exactly say why or refute the hypothesis. But proposing that consciousness is a fundamental interaction, that is, it is not computable, resolves these thought experiments. And plenty of people have proposed consciousness to arise from some fundamental interaction of matter, much like one of the four classical forces themselves; that is, that it not simply an epiphenomenon. Integrated Information Theory, you have Chalmers’ panpsychist thesis, etc.
I have my own version of this fundementality argument when it comes to consciousness, which I have written about at length before in other threads, and which I simply assume to be true, having never been given an adequate counter-argument by anybody. If you believe otherwise, if you believe that consciousness IS computable, you are forced to accept a bunch of thought experiments and paradoxes that are patently stupid.