Most of the “facts” are interpretations that will probably be discarded as more is learned. The claim that the infinite universes hypothesis is the “standard model” is bogus. (God as a bubble machine). The hypothesis is just an effort to save metaphysical naturalism from John Wheeler’s anthropic principle. Paul Davies rejects the bubble machine in favor of an equally unsupported theory of backward causation. There are probably other theories that try to answer Wheeler’s original challenge. All of them are interesting, but none of them ought to be considered as a part of the standard model of physics in the sense that, say, quanum mechanics and general relativity are part of the standard model.
Physics is fascinating.
If there was an infinite number of universes, with an infinite number of possibilities for each universe, there would be at leat one universe in which the people destroyed all the other ones.
The infinite possibilites hypothesis is a weak answer to a complex question that we do not yet understand.
I agree. But I think this. If belief in a theory requires the creation of new mental gymnastics to support it, then that theory has left the scientific realm.
What’s kind of interesting to me too, though, is observing the larger trends in thinking. Chemistry and alchemy were once branches of the same tree, so to speak.
So too - in a sense - with physics and metaphysics.