>>186
What is "probability"? What is a "chance"? Please, care to avoid buzzwords. I maybe a goy, but such blatant bullshit is offensive even for me.
Consider that you have a particular memory limit for everything that can possibly exist. No number greater than that and so on.
Now consider all the possible Turing-equivalent programs that define some laws of physics, up to your favorite upper bound. Given that you claimed some such limit, you can now decide very exactly which of them will result in our own laws of physics. Some such program may represent the laws of physics of our world, but you see, there's a memory limit, so it will only run a finite number of steps (or will loop). There is also another problem: the first-person indeterimism and the quantum laws that would follow would become severly limited (given the UDA view) and would be likely to contradict our current observations (of course, you try to rise the limit just high enough to prevent that, but you see, you will have to keep rising the limit as time progresses to keep the laws agreeing - you end up with the unbounded view that way). There is of course a different view which requires one to eliminate the notion of senses or consciousness as well as claim that quantum randomness is the result of PRNGs, not random oracles (which result naturally within the UDA view, or in the more restricted MWI view), that could salvage your theory partially, but wait, you're a subjective idealist, thus you will reject any theory that rejects the mind's existence, meaning that you are stuck in a tight corner - either ultrafinitism has to give or the subjective idealism has to give, at least if you don't want to keep increasing the bound endlessly just to satify all observations - there is even an experiment in the future which we could perform to show that such a bound is non-sense, but it's a bit too early to talk about that and I'm not going to bother talking about it either as you refused to even read anything I referenced.
The notion of probability is well-defined in the ultrafinist case, even much more well-defined than in the classical finitist case. Technically you could even compute it if you had... just more resources than your current upper bound (but still finite), ahahaha.