Ethan I certainly accept the theory and logic of Multiverse as possible — if not we have as a minimum the question any 7 year old can submit, “ok, what is beyond that?” — a dive into infinity not easily convenient. For me the word in most scientific principal definitions that I swirl around is the English word observation, observable, observe — a word pretty much unchanged from Latin. As observers it seems to me we have an intrinsic subjectivity (we are only ob, prefaced, and serve, attending to) what is in the realm of our capability to distinguish. Physicists did not embrace Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 book (he did get a PhD in 1940s era physics) nearly as readily as the liberal arts crowd.

It is possible to be in a multi universe now with observation infinitely replicating indistinguishable but actually infinitely divergent views camouflaged by the act of our observation. Unlikely and smacking of 1500(s) Montaigne (“que sçay-je”) as this is … my assertion would be that the only thing that is even more unlikely than this possibility is the chance that astronomers would acknowledge it as a possibility. My point is this: when it comes to unchartered frontiers we are altogether inclined to project in a very human way that the unknown is something like the known just slightly different than that already “observed”.