“Incredulity Made Me Do It”: That Improbability Cop-Out of Scientism

The universe’s improbability is the primary argument for the multiverse, so statistical incredulity, essentially. This theory proposes that our observable universe is just one of countless others, each with its own set of physical laws and constants. According to this view, the conditions necessary for life, such as the precise strength of gravity or the fine-tuning of quantum mechanics, represents mere statistical unlikelihood transposed into inevitability on account of an infinite number of different “-verses” in a universe composed of universes, often called the multiverse containing multiverses within it, and ever compiling more as these multiverses split from one another.

This explanation, however, is not without problems. First, it requires assuming that every possible configuration of physical laws exist across an infinite number of universes, a claim that defies even the possibility of any empirical verification. Second, its presumptions immediately invite an important question: why should we believe in an infinite multiverse at all? What is the difference between non-observable potential situations and thought experiments? Further, if every possibility is realised infinitely, then what need would we have conceptually for a singular set of them? What would be the point in differentiation amid limitless differentiation? If everything is possible, then what meaning does our existence hold?

Moreover, this theory has been used not to explain the universe’s improbability, but to dismiss it. So the theory is dismissive, primarily. Here we touch upon the whole point of multiverse theories: in maintaining the principle of basic mediocrity. If our universe points in on us, and we appear to be the focal point, then this must simply be wrong. Multiverse theory is little more than the maintenance of atheism against all contradictory evidence. When scientists encounter inexplicable phenomena, such as the fine-tuning of physical constants that allow life to exist, they do not seek deeper truths; instead, they propose a multiverse as an alternative explanation. This is not scientific inquiry, but a form of intellectual evasion (as funded of course). It allows us to avoid confronting the possibility that our universe may be designed with purpose, rather than being a random accident of chance.

Reducing the mystery of existence to an infinite series of possibilities loses sight of what makes our universe unique, which is the whole point of the activity. If every outcome is possible, then everything becomes equally probable, and thus, nothing special. If all possibilities exist, then why should any one of them matter? They can’t and don’t in multiverse, and this is the whole point: rejection of wonderment, which is a necessity for raising up self-assured scientists who seek money instead of truth.