Amir D. Aczel Eradicates the Infinite Multiverse Using Probability Theory

Amir Aczel demonstrates a straightforward and deadly approach to the concept of the infinite multiverse. In order to get around the anthropic characteristics inherent in our own universe, physicists posit the existence of other universes which vary slightly, but are infinite in number. This is not provable, and is a useful fiction only for the story-telling aspect that now inhabits much of non-experimental, non-verifiable, non-empirical science. Yet much of cosmology now depends on this useful fiction.

Fictions are now often employed by science apologists, and the question is no longer that of science as truth, but of science as the pursuit of agenda by story telling. The TV scientistic apologetics series, Cosmos, has aroused the historians due to its false presentation of science history as Atheistic and religion as scientific heresy. There is even a debate regarding the proper ethics of using useful lies to promote scientific "truth", in this case regarding Cosmos, but also in the past regarding the usefulness of Haekel's fraudulent embryo drawings in modern texts; the designation of evolution as "truth" by Jerry Coyne despite its non-falsifiability and the inability of selection to account for it; the fraudulent title and thrust of Laurence Krauss' book declaring knowledge of a "universe from nothing"; the entire field of "evo-devo" as it applies to the evolution of psychological and cultural features; the "settled truth" of climate computer models, and so on. The field of anthropology actually removed the term "scientific" from the description of its endeavors, in a fit of intellectual honesty rarely seen in science today.

But is this multiverse fiction even possible? Aczel walks through a quick demonstration of how infinities and probabilities collide, providing clear, logical evidence that a multiverse cannot be probable. I think Aczel is my new favorite mathematician.

After the proof (read it, it is clear, sharp and concise), Aczel concludes:

"What does it all mean? It means that if you create universes that are countably infinite then, yes, you could say that things will happen (maybe something like you and me will materialize in other universes--maybe), similarly to how a monkey might reproduce Hamlet after a really, really long time. But you can't really say anything about parameters and fine tuning. If you think that you can somehow "create" finely-tuned parameters for your universe, ones that live on the continuum of numbers (such as pi!), then you can forget about it: With probability one (that is, except for on a set of measure zero), this will never happen! Put another way, there is a zero probability that you could ever recreate finely-tuned parameters that would replicate those of our universe. What does this imply about our own universe?"

Of course, the implication for our own universe is clear: it is uniquely outside of any mathematically possible multiverse.