We have the right to believe at our own risk
that is live enough to tempt our will.
- William James
This paradigm is called the MWI (Many Worlds
Interpretation) and is supported by many physicists, some of them
notable—or should I say notorious? In the variations of this paradigm
there exist an infinite number of universes in which all the
possibilities are covered, and the number is growing exponentially along
with the burgeoning possibilities.
In this paradigm the ultimate reality is chance or
possibility. There is no purpose, no design, no basis for ethics other
than to just play the odds. Every question has the same answer. It just
happens, it just IS in this world. This paradigm makes a mockery of
anything but temporary philosophy and chimerical foundation for morality. Martin
Gardiner makes two salient points:
In the MWI, most of its defenders agree, there is no room for free
will. The multiverse, the universe of all universes, develops strictly
along determinist lines, always obeying the deterministically evolving
Schrödinger equation. This equation is a monstrous wave function which
never collapses unless it is observed and collapsed by an intelligence
outside the multiverse, namely God.—Martin Gardiner, Multiverses and
The stark truth is that there is not the slightest shred of reliable
evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No
multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested.
In my layman's opinion they are all frivolous fantasies. As far as we
can tell, universes are not as plentiful as even two
blackberries. Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and
its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there
are countless billions upon billions of worlds, constantly increasing in
number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to
which today's philosophy of science has fallen.—Martin Gardiner,
Multiverses and Blackberries
This most absurd "explanation" of them all, the "many worlds"
hypothesis, is the most outrageous "scientific" copout ever dignified by
journalism. If taken seriously and to its logical conclusion, it would
undermine any basis for serious science, including any basis for
morality, in that no matter what choices one would make in this world,
any and all possibilities would inexorably take place in another.
"What does it mean for something to exist if you can't observe
asks Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist at the Frankfurt
Advanced Studies in Germany. "I think that's a
belongs safely in the realm of philosophy," she
can believe in the multiverse all they want —but it's not science.
I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become,"
Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now
they try to explain why they can't explain what
was not observed.
And they're not even good at that."
This "many worlds" hypothesis also violates one of the most fundamental
principles of philosophy by saying "everything" and "nothing"
simultaneously. It is unfalsifiable,
unusable, unhelpful and unwarranted; the perfect capstone for the
There is a huge amount of insanity out there, dressed up in
suit and tie, bolstered and emboldened by degrees from prestigious
universities, holding forth with aplomb to their gullible
non-critical-thinking audiences, and this "paradigm" is one prime example.