The article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself, have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point started wi

The article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself, have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point started with a criticism of the article, not of your comment. It, like you, talks of _the_ multiverse in one specific way, and I was pointing out a problem with that. It said: "The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules." See where it says "The multiverse is" and "This theory is", as if the multiverse notion is only that? and the full text of my response to that point was > It's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to explain a universe suitable for life. > > There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation