It is not so much a fallacy as it is a case of people being ignorant of math, and probability theory and statistics is something most people find difficult to get right generally. Heck, I have to think about some of these things very hard to make sure I'm applying the math correctly and I'm supposed to know this stuff.
This particular misapplication of math refuses to die on these threads. The most common invalid uses are the assumption of an isotropic probability space (doesn't exist really but it makes the math *much* easier, never mind the wildly invalid results), and what you allude to above, inverting the size of the phase space and calling it "statistical probability".
If one can get people to acknowledge that the probability space is not isotropic, it will follow from the math that many outcomes are astronomically more probable than the number arrived at by inverting the size of the phase space.
An inference of Intelligent Design, that would be.
A recent study showed that most people believed that a bullet shot from a curved barrel would circle back around on them.
As a semi-inumerant, I would appreciate a link to an explanation of whatever that means. Or a concrete example.
Yes, but the result is a worthless argument. Call it a false assumption if you like. But I named it, and I'll stick with it for a while. (I'm my biggest fan.)
I'm glad that FINALLY someone has explained it!