That’s an interesting point, and not to minimize it or try to dismiss you, it doesn’t pertain to what we were talking about.
Multiple Universes are very likely, almost assured, but not as a means for understanding why the flow of events goes as it does. More likely, an expanding envelope of and essentially fixed but incomprehensibly huge number of quantum possibilities was created in the big bang and this envelope expands with time and the collapses with the flow of events. Each decision and event also collapses huge numbers of quantum possibilities as events pass from possible to being history.
This provides that all possibilites actually existed at the very first moment of the Big Bang, but at moment x = 1 nanosecond, and innumerable number of possibilities passed from potential existence. These possibilities don't represent real universes, they represent possible paths, that once a particular path is chosen, all others are excluded from the flow of events.
Now, slowly physics is catching up to the notion that information is the real raw material of the Universe, and that matter and energy are but forms of information. The speculate that the quantity of information in the universe is fixed. So as trillions of possibilities die in an instant of a single choice information is not lost or created, but converted into the flow of time itself. Such that what could happen, now simply becomes what could have happened. Quantum Possibilities do not represent real information. The information is entirely contained in the state of "What did Happen" as represented by the state of all of the energy and matter and free information possessed by the beings inhabiting the Universe.
This "free" information is not really running around free, it is information freed from existing only as state information for matter and energy that flows in the course of natural events without a passing notice by any sentient being.
Much of the "clockwork" aspect of the vast movements of matter and energy in the Universe proceed without the release of any "free" information. Only in the interaction of a sentient observer and the stream of events creates the possibility for the event or state to be noted, perhaps recorded, and possibly interpreted such that the flow of future events can be guided by "choice" as opposed to simple probability.
Choice is specifically an act of will. In the case of a simple single celled animal or such, this will is simply to survive by finding nutrients needed before it is too late. As such this will is feeble in guiding the events of its existence. It uses tactics such as can be derived by natural selection and passed to future generations, but reproduction, and such is not related to the existence of the individual but the survival of the community of organisms.
This would mean that in the beginning of life, there needed to be an impossible number of new organisms created that had no particular need to reproduce as they were the stupid ones.. that came before the organisms that caught on to the trick of reproducing.
This would mean that reproducing organisms would have had to destroy the conditions that the non-reproducing possibilities could no longer be created by the oodle. The creation of the first reproducing cell is harder to understand than the very smallest first moments of the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang. And even moreso, the lack of a continuing process of aborted attempts at creating life not based on the "standard" model that controls the Earth is very interesting to say the least.
Imagine if you would, a scientist creating a Universe and is only able to communicate with it in an impossibly limited way, perhaps quantum entanglement. Information cannot cross the boundary of the Universes but just like quantum entanglement is not restricted by the speed of light, perhaps particles may be entangled between Universes. The scientist has a device that not only represents the state of a single particle but instead contains a large field of particles that may be influenced as well. Then the scientist derives how to determine that he has the field of entangle particles in some place where making a change makes a difference, perhaps by pattern recognition and experimental work on entangled particles in the same Universe. Which is a bit of a problem knowing where the particles you are entangled with are, when you cannot identify and separate them yourself. As I said, impossibly difficult. Need a very patient scientist with an extraordinary lifetime. But, via entanglement, small changes may be made to change probabilities. If you are willing to work it a couple of Billion years, you might come up with a organisms or even Civilizations on the other side that is capable of actually communicating with you. Isn't that interesting.
The competence of journalists writing about science aside, it seemed that the idea that the universe was uniquely suitable for life has even been grudgingly accepted by naturalists, who attempt to employ the "anthropological principle" to ward off the notion that such is evidence of God. The idea is something like: only universes which are ideal for producing observers will be so ideally suited to produce observers.
I was kinda skipping ahead to where I thought the conversation logically lead.
I can not let is pass that I view the anthropological argument as logically fallacious (I am happy to argue why I think this with those who disagree). But certainly its common use demonstrates that the journalist is far from alone in his assessment that this universe is well suited for life...even among those who have a stake in not acknowledging such a conclusion.