I mention it because the relevant passage in the original article is "you cannot have “most” of infinity. The only scenario where it somewhat makes sense is where a finite number of worlds evolved life, but an infinite number did not.", which is blatantly untrue given that you can compare infinite sets with different cardinalities. My point is there's no need to get hung up on the probability space of countably infinite sets to comfortably assert that that's nonsense, which is what was happening here

Y'all are getting worked up about comparing countable infinities. There are other ways to have 'most' of an infinity - e.g. there are more non-rational reals than rationals because the former is uncountable