Your first error is ontological: there is no known cause for being. Hence, since we don't know how being works, how can we extrapolate it mathematically? Your

Your first error is ontological: there is no known cause for being. Hence, since we don't know how being works, how can we extrapolate it mathematically? Your second error is metaphysical: you assume you exist. You assume your existence can be validated or confirmed. However, there is no such thing. There is no way you or anybody else can prove they exist. Your third error is perceptive: you assume others exist, and you assume animals exist. You assume the physical world you perceive is 'real'. This perception - albeit probably a very persistent one - cannot be proven to be 'real', meaning that perception is a lousy basis for ontological statements. Your fourth error is that you're confused. You assume there is a distribution mechanism for existence, let alone a consistent and predictable one. In short, your question is unanswerable. The only sane thing to do is to reject it as best as we can, maybe somebody learns something.