Why I do not believe in the multiverse
The multiverse, the idea that the universe is constantly splitting into parallel copies of itself, appeals to atheists and determinists alike. It offers a philosophical way out of the anthropic question: why does the universe seem uniquely suitable to our existence? It lets us know that the universe is not random but that nothing is pre-destined to happen, even our existence.
The problem with it is that it fails Ockham’s razor and rests on the most tenuous physical arguments. It tells us that not only are there an infinite number of alternate realities out there but that this must be so because it is the only way to explain quantum theory coherently. The latter statement is hardly true, and the strawman argument that its only rival is something called “wavefunction collapse” is also false.
The anthropic principle meanwhile that the early universe actually produced an infinite variety of universes, mostly empty, and ours just happened to be the one suited to our existence is a Bayesian argument. Bayesian arguments are expressions of what we don’t know, not scientific theories. They are hypotheses based on how we think the universe ought to work. We don’t know why the universe has the properties it does suitable to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. To say we evolved on planet Earth and not a lifeless moon because of the anthropic principle…
