I've read some of Sean Carroll's stuff, and it smells to me more like the multiverse is a philosophic construct pulled together as a hasty defense against the weak anthropic principle (which, when coupled with the big bang, is suddenly NOT intractably at metaphysical odds with Genesis: which, although a far cry from being Biblical literalism, is nonetheless philosophically unbearable).
ASU's resident militant atheist Larry Krausse -- who bears an odd resemblance to Alan Colmes -- has pretty much admitted as much.
The math simply doesn't impress me, on two grounds. First, recall the Ptolemaic vs. Copernican view of the cosmos, and the mathematical sophistication of epicycles and the like: mathematical constructs can be quite complex, and yet quite wrong. And the second follows from this, and was voiced by the late Richard Feynman:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
In certain areas of cosmology, as in certain areas of string theory (or, for that matter, evolutionary theory or economics) there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data -- with the result that there are no means for distinguishing between models, or for discarding or refining existing models experimentally. When that happens, one is left with assigning truth gladiatorially based on the reputation or churlishness of each theory's champions, or relying on authority: which is not in fact the practice of science.
Science works not because of the intellect or sophistication or superiority of its proponents, but simply because of empiricism.
And if there are no experiments which have been performed which bear an "if and only if" relationship to the multiverse model, then such models are not science, but merely speculation or science fiction (fairly good in that role), or metaphysics or atheology (and piss-poor at that).
Cheers!
Yes, andd that is why the concept of the Multiverse is likely a conjecture among many conjectures. It might be arguedd the conjecture is one step above a speculation, two steps above a fantasy, and one stepp below an hypothesis. In any event, it is a reasoned argument with enough basis in evidence to investigate to what extent it can lead the investigators to something which truly can qualify as an hypothesis.
“evolutionary theory[...]there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data[....]
On that point I would have to disagree and agree in parts. With respect to the evidence of evolutionary development as a result of accumulated changes to the genetic code, I would have to conclude the experimental and observational evidence is overwhelming to the point of being far beyond any reasonable doubt. With respect to the experimental and observational evidence for the transition from inorganic matter to organic life, I would have to agree such evidence is necessarily incomplete until such time as the artificial transition can be observed by experiment or perhaps extraterrestrial lifeforms are discovered lacking a commonality with the genetic code found in the lifeforms on the Earth. Since the lack of the evidence of the transition from inorganic matter to organic life is due to a lack of the technological capability to conduct the required experiments, I would argue the available evidence is sufficient to overwhelmingly hold the evidence for evolutioin of life is supported by the genetics until technology can confirm or deny the yet to be accomplished experiments.
I recall how I argued some fifty years ago for the existence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems and between stellar systems in interstellar space with the putdown that they did not and could not exist because there was no experimental prrof of their existence. Now some fifty years later there is direct evidence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems, and the existence of extrasolar planets in the interstellar space betweens these other stellar systems is now the subject of active research and probable confirmation. I suspect the same future confirmation is true for experimental evidence of inorganic matter transitioning to organic lifeforms. Our own genetic codes in the Earth’s lifeforms persuade me that the discovery of the scientific origins of life from inorganic matter is just a matter of time and effort.
I would further argue that it is likely to be inevitable for other radically different forms of life to have developed based upon fluorine or other elements besides carbon.