I read your post with interest and amusement.
I must be honest: the introduction almost made me move on, because it builds up such high expectations and presents your analysis as something close to the definitive interpretation of the world of MI. So please don’t take this the wrong way, but I think the ultimate word would still be Ron’s — assuming he ever decides to explain all the details himself, which he won’t.
I suspect that having fans come up with increasingly elaborate theories about his games is something of a guilty pleasure for him. He probably, beneath a layer of apparent annoyance, secretly enjoys seeing just how far we nerds can take our interpretations of his work. 
Your reference to ergodic literature is what struck me most, though. By defining Monkey Island as “ergodic”, I don’t think you are simply referring to the fact that, in order to advance the story, you have to interact with the game and solve puzzles. Rather, you seem to be attributing to Ron the intention of concealing the true meaning of the story, making it fully accessible only to those willing and able to “go the extra mile” to uncover it.
And this is where I would draw a distinction. If I had to take your theory as THE TRUTH, supposedly established through years of ergodic research, I probably wouldn’t find it very appealing.
But that’s not how I read your post: I read it as a complex and insightful interpretation of an open and deliberately ambiguous work that encourages speculation and leaves room for personal interpretation.
And in that context, I really enjoyed your analysis. There are many interesting observations, and I agree with many of the implications you draw from them. I admit I hadn’t thought about them to quite the same extent as you did, but I myself came up with the bizzarre theory years ago that Boybrush and Guybrush were the same person, and that Guybrush was the Oedipal son of Elaine and LeChuck — with LeChuck being an abusive father, to make matters even more interesting.
Here’s the reference: