Using zero probability on infinite sets to ascertain the inexistence of an object doesn't work. Lots of things have measure zero in an infinite set. For example

Using zero probability on infinite sets to ascertain the inexistence of an object doesn't work. Lots of things have measure zero in an infinite set. For example, out of all the integers, the probability of picking 7 is zero. Any finite set will have density zero in the integers too. So I find his small probability, however tiny, that out of all possible integer tuples none of them are a counterexample to be utterly unconvincing and ultimately misguided. To be clear: my complaint is that there is no way to turn this kind of argument into an actual proof. We could salvage other physicist arguments, but not this one. Probability zero on an infinite set cannot mean inexistence. And the rest of what he's doing, trying to determine that counterexamples must be rare, is "well duh, we knew that, because we've been looking for them."