These "theories" can be referred to as such only insofar as they are mathematical constructs. Otherwise, in order to be physical theories, they must be supported by evidence.
"In addition, the subtle mistake of the multiverse models is that the governing laws which are held to lead to spontaneous pair creation, etc., are themselves inferences from THIS universe:"
The fundamental governing law for anything to exist as an instantiation of a real, or true object can be stated mathematically as A=A. The equivalent verbally is, "a thing is what it is." In science it is stated as the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is what underlies the understanding of pair creation. The evidence that supports the understanding are observables, not inference. The law of conservation of energy must hold in any and every universe. Otherwise a thing would arbitrarily not be what it is and then, or at the same time, or any arbitrary time, arbitrarily be what it is.
Note that spontaneous pair creation leaves no net energy gain, or loss in this universe and likewise none in the universe the pair arose from. Nevertheless, the two worlds are aware of each other, because of the interaction.
"God is by definition outside of ALL nature and therefore not an extensive property of any posited verse."
Who defined this god and why should anyone concern themselves with such a conjured up being? Notice that a measure of an extensive property is a quantification of an amount of energy and would not apply to a sentient rational being. Sentience and rational capacity are not extensive properties of a being, they are intrinsic properties of a system. The intrinsic properties of this system, referred to as this universe, the one that arose out of the vacuum, and those intrinsic properties are sufficient to allow for individual singular and unique instantiations of sentient rational beings to arise out of this universe. In fact one of those beings in particular, identified Himself as having been an instantiation of Himself, before there was an instantiation of this world itself.
That's exactly my point.
One can perform experiments here on Earth, and construct models, theories, and laws, based on the experimental observations.
From that point, specific predictions can be based upon the models.
The model is held to be of greater or lesser usefulness or accuracy, depending on how well it replicates known (true) experimental results, or accurately predicts results in advance of experiment.
All good, so far.
But -- you just repeated the mistake I spoke of, in your reply to me, thus:
The equivalent verbally is, "a thing is what it is." In science it is stated as the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is what underlies the understanding of pair creation.
The law of conservation of energy is not a mathematical tautology; it is a generalization of experimental results observed here on Earth, in THIS universe.
And thus, the phenomenon of spontaneous pair creation, need only hold in this universe.
I agree, we have no way of conceiving of a universe where the conservation laws do not hold -- but that is not the same thing as your dictum that "the law of conservation must hold in any and every universe".
You cannot rigorously *prove* that; the issue is that mathematics is so intertwined with the way the Universe we observe works, that it is a natural assumption that mathematics must be similarly present in ALL universes.
But -- that cannot be derived from experiments in *this* universe; and if you rely on pure mathematics, then you have abandoned the requirement that theories are based on evidence rather than elegance or self-consistency.
Which means that at that point, you have jumped from science to metaphysics; and without the assurance, consilience, or falsifiability provided by true, well-constructed experiments, there are no rigorous grounds for insisting that those metaphysics are preferable to any others.
Cheers!