I was doing some research on the multiverse theory to prepare myself for an episode of the Knight and Rose Show podcast. I thought it might be a good idea to put the list of objections to the multiverse theory into a blog post, explain them all as simply as I could, and then link to an expert for the details on one more that you can take with you on your apologetics adventures.

So, the first thing is to explain what caused the development of the multiverse theory: the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument has to do with the constants, quantities and ratios that are simply “given” as parameters to the universe, at the beginning of the universe. The parameters are fine-tuned to allow complex, embodied life to exist. Change the parameters slightly, and you have no life. It’s an argument for design. And the multiverse is supposed to counter it.

Let’s link to something by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, for a quick version of what that argument is all about:

Beginning in the 1960s, physicists unveiled a universe apparently fine-tuned for the possibility of human life. They discovered that the existence of life in the universe depends upon a highly improbable but precise balance of physical factors.⁴ The constants of physics, the initial conditions of the universe, and many other of its features appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life. Even very slight alterations in the values of many factors, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the value of Planck’s constant, would render life impossible. Physicists now refer to these factors as “anthropic coincidences” (because they make life possible for man) and to the fortunate convergence of all these coincidences as the “fine tuning of the universe”. Given the improbability of the precise ensemble of values represented by these constants, and their specificity relative to the requirements of a life-sustaining universe, many physicists have noted that the fine tuning strongly suggests design by a preexistent intelligence. As well-known British physicist Paul Davies has put it, “the impression of design is overwhelming.”⁵

To see why, consider the following illustration. Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate “universe-creating machine”, with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitational constant, one for Planck’s constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculation that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?

And in a previous post, I wrote about the three examples of fine-tuning that I personally have ready to go in a discussion, the ones that are the simplest for me.

Anyway, atheists were not very happy about what the progress of science had revealed, so decided to invent a new theory to get them out of the evidence. And that theory is the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory simply states that we shouldn’t be surprised to find evidence for design in our universe, because there are billions and billions of other universes where there is no design, and so, we just got lucky.

So, here is my quick list of objections (and brief explanations) to this multiverse theory:

1. Boltzmann Brains: In an infinite multiverse, random chaos should create lone brains with fake memories way more often than real people with bodies like us. So why do we see a universe with embodied intelligences?
2. Inverse Gambler Fallacy: The multiverse says, “Our universe is rare, so there must be tons of others.” But seeing one rare thing doesn’t prove that billions of hidden common things exist.
3. Universe generating factory still needs fine-tuning: Even if a “multiverse factory” spits out universes with different random quantities and constants, it still needs super-precise settings to make any life-friendly ones. The problem just moves up a level.
4. No direct evidence for multiverse: We can’t see, touch, or detect other universes. So far, it’s a story, not science.
5. Infinite universes means anything can happen, making science impossible: If there is an infinite number of actual universes, then anything can happen, and we can’t do science any more.
6. Multiverse can’t explain independent local fine-tuning: The multiverse might explain one dial being right, but not why we find fine-tuning for habitability (and fine-tuning that is correlated with discoverability) at lower levels.
7. The measure problem: Even if universes exist, physicists can’t agree on how to measure probability. Without that, the multiverse can’t explain anything.

So, people really find #4 to be the easiest to remember. By definition, we can’t ever get out of our universe to be able to observe these other universes that supposedly exist. So definitely remember that one. And then #3, because Stephen C. Meyer makes a big deal out of the universe generator needing fine-tuning itself, in his book “The Return of the God Hypothesis”. You can read an essay that mentions it here, written by Robin Collins. And #6 is good too, here is an article by Guillermo Gonzalez about the local fine-tuning (habitability – discoverability link).

But here are some details on #1 in this article from Science and Culture by physicist Dr. Brian C. Miller. Basically, the multiverse theory makes a prediction about what we should see if it were true, but sadly for the design-deniers, our experience contradicts the prediction.

Boltzmann Brains

Standard multiverse models, such as those based on eternal inflation and string theory, predict that the odds are far smaller for a brain emerging from a gradual process in an ancient universe than for a brain emerging from atoms suddenly coalescing in a young universe. In other words, we are far less likely to possess a brain with memories of a real life history than possess what is termed a Boltzmann brain that emerged from quantum fluctuations in the recent past with fictitious memories.

Since no one desires to believe in such freaky observers as Boltzmann brains, physicists have grappled with our being such seemingly improbable normal observers. In addition, our universe is highly atypical in its old age and its high level of order. Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of a universe appearing as orderly as ours to be 1 chance in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 — a number that includes more zeros than the number of atoms in the visible universe.

So, I hope that’s enough to equip you to discuss this theory. Now you have everything you need. Three easy examples of fine-tuning, and four easy refutations of the the counter to the fine-tuning. This is a solid argument, so have fun with it.

There’s a new article the UK Telegraph, with the headline: “Government ‘withholding data that may link Covid jab to excess deaths’”. The subtitle is “UKHSA argued that releasing figures would lead to ‘distress or anger’ of bereaved relatives if connection were discovered”. The UK government, a leader in COVID hysteria, is refusing to release data that would show what they caused.

It says:

The public health watchdog has been accused of a “cover-up” after refusing to publish data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.

Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.

Last year, a cross-party group expressed alarm about “growing public and professional concerns” over the UK’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.

In a letter to UKHSA and Department for Health, the MPs and peers said that potentially critical data – which map the date of people’s Covid vaccine doses to the date of their deaths – had been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.

[…]UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.

It’s important to be skeptical of any dogmas embraced by the secular left. They are alarmed by human freedom and personal responsibility, so they tend to seize on anything that that attacks them. Their goal being to equalize outcomes for all, regardless of persona life choices. They don’t like that some people choose to buy big SUVs. They don’t like that some people live in big houses. They don’t like that some people have a lot of children. They don’t like that some people send their kids to better private schools. They REALLY don’t like when families homeschool their kids. They want everyone to agree with them, and they often use government to achieve that goal. That’s why they get so excited when everyone isn’t moving in the same direction that they want. Like with Darwinian evolution, man-made global warming, and pandemics.

Keep in mind that people were losing their jobs left, right and center because of their refusal to take these vaccines. And anything you said online was being scrutinized to shut down your free speech.

Now might be a good time to review my reason for not taking any COVID vaccines: manufacturer liability waivers. I simply do not use products made by companies who bear no consequences for causing me harm. That’s also my reason for disliking government monopolies by the way. I don’t like big government, because so often, they have get-out-of-jail-free cards for their crimes – just look at Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecure e-mail server as a good example.

This far-left CNBC article is from December 2020, and it says:

If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law.

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer
and Moderna
immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.“

You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.

Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade.

And then there was a more recent article from the far-left Bloomberg News in December 2024, letting us know that these get-out-of-consequences-free cards had been extended:

The US Department of Health and Human Services is extending through 2029 liability protections for those producing and administering Covid-19 vaccines, in a move to guard against future potential health emergencies.

[…]The announcement comes as people working in the vaccine injury space have called for Covid-19 vaccines to be covered under the HHS’ Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Known as the VICP, the program pays people injured by standard childhood vaccines and shields drugmakers from litigation.

Covid-19 vaccine injuries aren’t currently covered by the VICP.

Extending the protection from liability was one of the last things that Biden (or his autopen) did, on his way out.

People need to be wise when deciding who to believe about things. Most of the people in the commanding heights of this society think that the universe is eternal, that there’s a viable naturalistic explanation for things like the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, cosmic fine-tuning, etc. People believe that abortion doesn’t take a human life and that human action has more effect on global temperatures than solar activity. So, that’s how some people arrive at their beliefs – whatever makes them feel good. Whatever makes them get approval from the elites. Whatever leads to more and bigger government making everyone “equal” – especially equal in their beliefs about things.

These people haven’t done any work to investigate anything themselves. It’s just convenient for them to believe it. In totalitarian regimes, lots of people committed atrocities because that’s what was easiest for them. The trick is spotting the trends and getting out before they can force you to go along with their schemes.

My favorite news web site to read every day after I have a look at Twitter is The Federalist. Imagine my surprise when I found not one, not two, but three columns about how feminism harms young women. And all of them written by women! Normally, when I read these columns, the authors make it sound as though it is men who are to blame for bad outcomes. But none of these did that.

Here’s the first one by Brooke Brandtjen, entitled “NYC Women Voted For Mamdani Because They Can’t Bag a Man“. That was the original title, she changed it to something almost as good.

Here is my favorite part – explaining how Democrats trick women into voting for big government:

Left-wing politics are predatory. Democrats make emotional arguments — about “empathy,” “equity,” contrived “rights,” and “safety” — which largely appeal to a notoriously emotional demographic. In fact, Democrat leaders want the government to fill a husband-like role, making their constituents dependents of the state — and they’ve been working toward it for years. Remember former President Barack Obama’s “Life of Julia” campaign in 2012, for instance. Playing on female anxieties about college, health insurance, motherhood, and career, Democrats made women feel vulnerable and presented the government as a sort of benevolent husband for every point in “Julia’s” life. Compared to Mamdani’s radical communist agenda, Obama’s vision feels tame, but it offered Democrats a playbook for targeting young women.

Conservative logic often takes a backseat to left-wing talking points. Abortion advocates cry “my body, my choice” to make young women feel empowered, while simultaneously stripping them of agency and true femininity. Social justice warriors tell them “love is love,” “diversity is strength,” and “silence is violence.” Corporate media post photos of crying illegal aliens facing deportation to show how cruel American border enforcement is. Democrats rely on emotional manipulation to get their base out to vote.

Many of these young women are also crippled by student loan debt. Gen Z has the fastest annual student loan compound interest rate, a whopping 6.72 percent. Almost half of Gen Z has student loan debt. The good careers they were promised from their overpriced colleges aren’t as readily available as they had hoped, either. With a staggering number of entry-level positions being outsourced to foreigners or AI, there is less chance they will earn a salary that chips away at their compounding interest.

After being lied to about living in a fascist, intolerant, sexist society and crushing themselves under a mountain of debt, it’s no surprise that young women are scrambling to alleviate the pain. The number of young women prescribed SSRIs has skyrocketed in recent years, and many of them are in therapy. Young women are conditioned to be sad, angry, and financially unstable.

Honestly, you have to read the whole thing, it is a masterpiece. The author attends a Bible-based church in Wisconsin, so if you are a young man out there, you might see if she is single, and if she is, ask her out on a date. Because I don’t think she will be single for long.

Here is the second article, written by Jennifer Galardi, entitled “Most Women Are On Crazy Pills, And It’s Bad For Everyone“.

The title is already great, but here is an excerpt:

The ease of self-diagnosis, combined with increased accessibility to SSRIs, has led a large number of young women to pursue medical intervention for their problems. Approximately one in four adult women in the United States reported taking at least one psychiatric medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, or ADHD drugs) in the past year, according to recent CDC National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

Approximately 17 percent of college students (ages 18–25) use psychiatric meds, mirroring wider population trends — and the percentage of female college students taking these meds is likely much higher. Bottom line — adjusting for trends over the past few years — roughly 30-35 million American women are currently on at least one psychiatric medication, with the true number likely closer to 35 million because overall mental-health treatment (including medication) has risen every year since the pandemic (23.9 percent of all adults in 2023).

When I was 18-25, I remember spending my money on an occasional computer game. Maybe I would buy Harpoon, and go hunting for Soviet submarines with sonobuoys, SOSUS and sonars in the GIUK Gap. I learned a lot about modern warfare from playing that game. Or maybe I would buy a boxed wargame, and play that with my friends. Boy hobbies are certainly a lot more wholesome than the girl hobby of doing drugs. And less expensive!

Anyway, the third one is a bit sad. It’s by Jordan Boyd, and it’s entitled “Kelsea Ballerini’s ‘I Sit In Parks’ Exposes The Heartbreak Of Buying Girl Boss Lies“.

The whole thing is wonderful, showing how young women are being taught by celebrities to delay marriage for careers. In this case, the celebrity is Kelsea Ballerini (I’ve never heard of her).

It starts like this:

Kelsea Ballerini is suffering from a broken heart. The 32-year-old’s troubles do not necessarily stem from an off-again, on-again relationship with beau Chase Stokes, though that probably plays a role. Rather, Ballerini’s obvious emotional ache comes from a deep longing to be a wife and mother.

Ballerini’s real-time struggle between the girl boss identity she bought into at just 19 years-old and the reality that it’s left her “sitting in parks” coveting the love and memories made by families with kids is documented in her latest release “I Sit In Parks”.

And this is the part I loved, it really shows you what is going on:

Ballerini doesn’t explicitly say it in her song, but she appears to have some regret about the end of her nearly five-year marriage in 2022. After all, her relationship with fellow country music star Morgan Evans was the closest she’s gotten to the life she now desperately dreams of and desires in her latest song.

At the time of the split, Ballerini claimed the two went their separate ways due to “irreconcilable differences.” It wasn’t until later that she admitted her devotion to her career and her unwillingness to have children at the time — if at all — played key roles in the divorce.

Women don’t get a lot of wisdom from conservative men these days. Conservative men seem to be afraid to tell young women the truth about the likely outcomes of their decisions. Those men are weak men, because they put their desire to be liked by women above their obligation to protect women by telling them the truth. Some of them got married to feminists, and just don’t want to get kicked out of the bedroom – or get served with divorce papers.

It’s fashionable today to just let women chase their careers into their 30s. People want to blame men for not marrying career women when they are in their 30s. But men don’t want to marry a woman who works full-time and who puts the kids in daycare and public schools. Besides, those men probably had their proposals rejected by the career women when those women were in their 20s.

It’s better to warn young women about making bad decisions when they are still young enough to change course. That’s what these three articles do. So, I’d like you to read them and share them.