What's in your Universe?

Per a request from Autumnforest in my previous post, I'm going to attempt to analyze a theory of multiverses presented in an article on phsyorg.com.  I've read about various theories of multiverses and parallel universes before, but I will go ahead and admit that I've never given it a great deal of thought, and what I have read about them has been mostly relegated to a footnote in my mind.  As such, this may be a rather feeble attempt to analyze the article, but I am nevertheless going to attempt an analysis of it anyways.

The idea of a multiverse has been visited numerous times in the Stargate franchise of television shows.  There are numerous times when the characters find themselves in an alternate reality where things are different, or are visited by an alternate version of themselves from another reality.  In my own life, I have sometimes wondered when making a difficult decision what might happen if I had made the opposite decision.  How might things be different?  Would they be better or worse?  On some occasions, I've also wondered if there isn't alternate version of me who made the opposite decision and is living the life I might have lived if I had made that decision.

It's an intriguing concept, but I doubt its true.  I don't think that it's impossible that it could be true, but it just doesn't seem to fit for me.

To help me write the rest of this post, I'm going to cite some comments from the end of the article.

Here is what 'dmw' wrote:

hm, maybe I've forgotten what my 8th grade science class taught me. I always thought a scientific theory needed some evidence to support it. Am I missing something?

Similarly, 'RobertKLR' had this to say:

So it's settled, there are multiple universes and no proof is required? Maybe I should be laughing at the messenger instead of the subject material.

And here's another from 'frajo':

Non-falsifiable statements are non-scientific statements.

A legitimate theoretical possibility is not equivalent to a scientific theory. "Legitimate" is not a scientific term.

Before I go any further though, here is some clarification from 'ReeseJ2':

Bear in mind that it does say "theoretical possibility", not "scientific fact". All that means is that, theoretically speaking, the concept of multiple universes is not inconsistent with what we do know about physics.

As to frajo's comment, and many others on this thread, I would respectfully point out that the claim "it is possible that our universe is one of many" is distinct from the claim "our universe is one of many". This result, then, can be stated as "IF our universe is one of many, THEN there are at most this many other universes." Furthermore, I agree that it seems strange to use the human brain as the model of an observer--but quantum physics itself reserves a special place for the observer. I think it's valid.

Although ReeseJ2 makes a valid clarification here, that clarification isn't really a refutation of the point being made by the other commenters.  One observation I've made about science, especially theoretical physics, is that some theories are built upon other theories.  If someone were to say that, theoretically, there is a god named Zeus that exists, then someone else could then add on to that by explaining lightning as Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds.  The second theory rests on the first theory as a foundation.  So if the first theory is wrong, then the second theory must be wrong too.  And not only that, part of the evidence to support the secondary theory is that it isn't inconsistent with the original theory!

The multiverse theory presented in that article rests on the Big Bang theory.  So if the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the multiverse theory must be wrong too.  So I guess you have to first ask yourself if you think the Big Bang theory is correct.  Personally, the Big Bang theory doesn't impress me, and I think it's a rather feeble attempt to explain the origin of the universe.  So for me, if the multiverse theory is based on the Big Bang theory as a foundation, I don't give it much credence.

But, some people like the Big Bang theory.  The problem is you don't really have a way to prove it one way or the other.  You can't prove it happened, but who can prove it didn't happen?

Let's look at one more comment, this one from 'HiFlier':

So far the assumption in this article and threads has been that there was ONE big bang. Over an infinite (or very long) period of time perhaps MANY Big Bangs occur, each leading to a different number of universes. This would obviously push the number of universes much higher. Prove me wrong!

So if one could occur, why not more than one?  If so, does that mean there's potentially not just one multiverse, but multiple multiverses??  Can you prove him wrong?  Can you prove there wasn't more than one Big Bang?

A scientist (don't remember his name) one time asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if they proved that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist was somewhat surprised when the Dalai Lama said that they (the Buddhists) would say people should not believe in reincarnation anymore (I guess the scientist was expecting the Dalai Lama to try to defend the belief in reincarnation regardless).  But, the Dalai Lama then asked the scientist how he would prove that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist didn't have an answer.

So I guess you have to ask yourself whether you believe in reincarnation or not.  Can you really prove whether it exists or not?  So with that in mind, the Big Bang theory isn't that much different than a religious belief.  Sure, there's equations and scientific jargon attached to it, but ultimately, you can't prove that it really happened.

The multiverse theory is intriguing, but I don't think its true.  But...I can't prove that it isn't!  I also don't think there is another me in another universe somewhere.  I'm pretty sure it's just me.  Anybody other than me is...someone else.

But the multiverse theory isn't completely without value.  It's made for some interesting episodes of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.    J