You’re saying the multiple universe idea is not falsifiable empirically—in an a posteriori fashion—therefore we cannot really discuss it in a meaningful way. But the empirical is not all inclusive.
I’m saying the idea is falsifiable logically—that is, in an a priori sense. This sort of context is epistemologically valid, thus meaningful. Logic is the greater scope—logic encompasses empiricism. Not the other way around.
As for nature of the multiple universe idea, we should look at its origin. There are strong indications that it arose in the form of a psychologically motivated response by secular/atheist scientists to the discovery of physical evidence establishing the truth of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was a major refutation of the conventional view of many scientists who were educated during the first half of the 20th century. They tended to hold the belief that the universe had no beginning.
But the fact that the universe had a beginning makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to deny that it had a cause. This leads to the likelihood of intelligent design, an idea which is a major source of fear for secular scientists whose identities and sense of pride has been founded on the belief in a Godless, randomly based universe.
All I can say is ... Wow !!!
It is impossible for me to imagine having a ‘meeting of the minds’ with someone who is willing and able to publish such gobbledy-gook and EXPECT to be taken seriously.
You must get really dizzy spinning yourself around in circles like that all the time.
I tried — I Really TRIED — to translate enough of what you just published into a sensible form that might be refutable. However, I confess I have failed. We do not appear to share enough common ground to support further discussion — it would appear to be pointless.
At this point, I’ve lost all interest in trying to respond, so ... Buh ‘Bye !!!
21stCenturion