“Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: “This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science.””
And in another universe it won’t.
And in another universe it won’t.
I was thinking the same thing. (in this universe, at least.) Did Hugh Everett, here in this universe, come to the right answer by good scientific and logical reasoning and in another universe, where he came to the conclusion that it was false, did he do that by valid, logical reasoning, too? How in the world, excuse me, is there any way to tell which answer is better than any other when Everett himself, according to his own theory, would be bound to come up with both answers an infinite number of times?
The 'multiverse' notion is an attempt to explain away the vastly improbable fine-tuning of the universe, but you'd think that it might occur to its proponents at some point that any argument that necessarily entails disregard for the laws of logic or reasoning is patently foolish.
Cordially,