> Almost everyone who hears this argument immediately sees something wrong with it. The problem is, everyone thinks it's wrong for a different reason. And the more they study it, the more they tend to change their minds about what that reason is.

> The Copernican principle suggests that any one human is equally likely (along with the other N-1 humans) to find themselves in any position n of the total population N.

I feel like I must be misunderstanding the argument because it just doesn't make sense to me. First, why should I even assume N is finite? Second, even if I did, not everyone had an equal chance of participating in this hypothetical thought-experiment (or random selection or sampling, or whatever you want to call it) -- only those alive right now do. How is this different from saying: every dollar you make is equally privileged to every other one, therefore I can just fish out a $1 bill from your pocket and use that single dollar bill to estimate your expected lifetime income?

Our current understanding of physics dictates that the (observable) universe has a finite size and a finite lifespan, from which it logically follows that there can't be an infinite amount of humans.

Also, is there no phenomenon here where a sufficiently large N becomes increasingly indistinguishable from infinity?