[hinckley buzzard]

something besides data must motivate the science of multiverses, because by definition multiverses are not observable. Stenger makes the connection explicit, whereas Hawking or Susskind is a little more coy with their metaphysics. Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism.

So when you spew this crap about "the science" of multiverses you admit you are lying. There is no science without data. Just bullcrap. IOW another waste of space by an anti-religious bigot masquerading as an objective observer. Thanks, but no thanks.

[muawiyah]

One of the basic ideas regarding a "multiverse" is that the other universes are not observable unless they have characteristics in common with your own, e.g. electromagnetic radiation (and the underlying Quarks that make that all possible.

You'd sit there in your home universe looking out into the void and you'd see the light from the other universes ~ you might be able to discern individual components ~ things like giant stars.

The universes adjacent to your own that didn't have fundamental laws or quarks in common would be invisible. If they had gravity you might sense that.

Funniest thing is you look out on what we call "the Universe" there are island galaxies throughout ~ just all over the place ~ with immense voids between them.

The universe we see looks a lot like a multiverse ought to look.

[Sherman Logan]

by definition multiverses are not observable.

Actually, this is inaccurate. The multiverse, or other universes, are not observable with our present technology.

I know of no reason to believe their possible future observation or even physical access is by definition impossible.

Space warps, wormholes, and all that.