Uploaded July 2025 | Updated September 2026, 4 hours ago
A naive multiverse that explains the design in our universe simply based upon the idea that everything must exist somewhere in an infinite varied multiverse, falls prey to three serious related problems:
1) It’s a theory of the gaps which can be used to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing at all;
2) It’s an intrinsically irrefutable theory that is even capable of explaining away blatantly contradictory evidence;
3) It’s a self-defeating theory that undermines the very scientific theories on which it’s based.
These three problems aren’t merely problems for a naive multiverse attempting to explain fine tuning, but are intrinsic problems with a naive multiverse trying to explain anything. Simply positing that in an infinite, varied multiverse, X happens somewhere and we just happen to be in the universe where X happens is bad science.
A naive multiverse that explains the design in our universe simply based upon the idea that everything must exist somewhere in an infinite varied multiverse, falls prey to three serious related problems:
1) It’s a theory of the gaps which can be used to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing at all;
2) It’s an intrinsically irrefutable theory that is even capable of explaining away blatantly contradictory evidence;
3) It’s a self-defeating theory that undermines the very scientific theories on which it’s based.
These three problems aren’t merely problems for a naive multiverse attempting to explain fine tuning, but are intrinsic problems with a naive multiverse trying to explain anything. Simply positing that in an infinite, varied multiverse, X happens somewhere and we just happen to be in the universe where X happens is bad science.
