and pure chance is not an explanation. The multiverse is the most popular explanation. Direct evidence for the multiverse is currently impossible.
Contemplating my own existence, I believe an explanation (within the realm of scientific possibility) that gives me the greatest odds of existing is likely the best explanation.
With only one universe, the odds of me existing ever, let alone me existing only once and at this very moment, are close to zero. The odds would be greater for me to win every lottery I try this year, if I were to buy a ticket every week.
If there is a huge multiverse with various properties, my chances of existing greatly increase. With a large enough Multiverse with enough variation in the individual universes, my existence might be guaranteed.
Our Universe had a starting point at the Big Bang. With only one universe there would have been a time=zero moment, where something just came from nothing. Since nothing doesn't exist, nothing can't create something. So the Big Bang must have come from an already existing realm with already existing physics.
The idea that this physics that created our Universe didn't create any other universes is far-fetched. On Earth, if something is proven scientifically possible once, that same thing has then been proven to be possible any number of times. If this weren't true, science wouldn't work and nature could never be understood.
Here's Leonard Susskind's version of the multiverse:
This gets into the extremely low odds of a single universe existing that can have life. The video up loader had his own agenda, believing that our "fine-tuned" Universe is evidence for a fine-tuned god. That argument is self-defeating:
= new reply since forum marked as read
