It fails because it's assuming common threads tying the multiple
   universes together. Besides, the multiverse is a mathematical
   construct from the 1950s and has become a thought experiment and
   handy fictional universes tool to give SOME extra flexibility in
   the calculations for QM,. It was _NEVER_ intended to to describe
   our reality as it ACTUALLY IS. Nor should it. Fun bedtime
   stories. Great for Science Fiction. But it's ridiculous.
   Calculating alternate universes which just *happen* to follow
   the same logical/mathematical principles as our own with just
   new numbers plugged in? No. It's silly. Useful for calculations
   and a little QM flexibility - that's it's power - they can do
   things like borrow imaginary time and such so long as they put
   it back. But as a basis for the nature of things? It's becoming
   a modern day religious belief system. == It can't. I'm sorry.
   Maybe for a subset, sure. But for the entire Set of sets? It
   can't. == The consistency only holds within the human
   constructed theory and is assuming a platonic realm exists that
   is BEYOND "all of this" tying it all together where it can live
   permanently. afaik, there's no platonic realm. == It's "out
   there" compared to the real work of QM, which is rigorous,
   standard model, thoroughly tested, being used at present,
   practical, pragmatic and all of the things we expect out of
   Science. Multiverse? Eh, they're mathematical fun and useful for
   calculations. They're NOT saying "This Is The Way The Universe
   Is" except some ppl on popular science TV shows and books. The
   people that actually WORK in the stuff, and I have several
   friends who are published in journals for Theoretical Physics,
   as well as a couple who are on the way of getting their PhD's in
   the stuff: What you're seeing on TV? It's stuff for the
   imagination but it doesn't reflect the reality of the field. One
   of my friends, a QM Theorist in Romania wrote up a list of
   common popular science fallacies roaming about and wrote a bunch
   of corrections for them. If I come across it (he posted it a few
   weeks ago), I'll put it here. It was easy to read, clear and
   you'll see what I'm talking about. No, it's not refuted for its
   purpose. But it's purpose isn't that our "real universe may be a
   multiverse". That's a misuse of it. I'll post it here if I come
   across it and you can tell me what you think. == Not all numbers
   correspond to physical objects even though they are initially
   based upon them. They _do_ have a grammar of their own that
   useful that does not necessarily correspond. Abstractions and
   metaphors and analogies don't always - or even typically -
   correspond 1:1 to what they represent. == Yes, it's the science
   promoters. They're the "Public Face". They're job is to get up
   their and talk and teach and inspire people to be interested in
   Science. They also write books. They're authors. I'm not
   debunking multiverse. You can believe it if you want to. I'd
   like to believe it too. But book authors and people that give
   talks are sales people. They've been heavily utilized by the
   Discovery Channel as The Face of Science. They also have their
   own careers in the public eye. Why is it that you see the big
   names? In the USA alone, there are 18,810 physicists employed as
   physicists in 2014. That's just the USA and that's just the ones
   with jobs. Pop over to arXiv sometime. Tell me how many names
   you recognize in the recently published list? You gave me 14-15
   names. That's 0.082% of the total percentage of working
   theoretical physicists in the USA only. Worldwide, there are
   many more. So few. Why are they so important? They're promoters
   of Science. They're authors. Look at what they ACTUALLY do most
   of the time rather than what they talk about. You'll see a
   difference there. == If the world were that simple, Deepak. TV
   productions, selling books, marketing, all that stuff costs
   money that's NOT primarily coming from Science. Same thing
   happened with Einstein. His last work of SCIENTIFIC relevance
   was the General Theory of Relativity in 1915. After that, he was
   a celebrity. He showed up for photo ops, gave interviews for
   newspapers and newsreels. Sure, he did more stuff in his life.
   Interesting stuff. Fascinating stuff. But as far as for Science?
   His major contributions, and they WERE quite major and still
   are, nevertheless, ended in 1915. After that, he was a star. ==
   But he was quoted for many things after that until his death
   that The People loved and enjoyed, including his opinions on
   Science... that the rest of the scientific community had left
   already. Same things happen today. == I should call it by its
   proper name: The Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum
   mechanics. Not sure who coined multiverse. == Ah! Found it.
   While William James came up with the word "multiverse" in 1895,
   this isn't how he meant it. The CURRENT term multiverse came
   from Sci-Fi author Michael Moorcock. == These days, I'd say it's
   Hawking and actually, most of the names you mentioned are
   extraordinarily popular among the general public. They're on
   T-shirts and bumper stickers and Memes and people bring up their
   names on the Internet in forums even. == Yeah, sounds like it. I
   was REALLY into physics in high school back in 1986/7 or so. Not
   the Newton stuff but Black holes. Even before Hawking's black
   hole book came out, I wrote a 10 page book report on Black
   holes. I remember the debates about Guth and inflation. The
   multiverse was talked about by Dewitt. I even tried to read "The
   Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (1973)" in
   college in 1990... but it was WAAAAAY over my head. But I was
   already familiar with the 'gist' of from my high school
   textbooks, my interest in Sci fi and such. So everything you
   said is very familiar to me. It's nothing new, except it's
   gotten popular again. == go with differing pressures myself
   forming various strata. Keeps it simpler tongue emoticon ==
   purely objective notions are nice and neat and clean but I
   rather like the messiness of relativistic things. Should be
   incorporated into everything I think. == Of course. I don't
   think anything is exclusionary. How can it be? Besides the
   objectification requires the subjective interpreter working at a
   particular 'zoom' that's appropriate for their needs. As humans,
   we see objects where perhaps an electron might see something
   entirely different, so long as it was holding out its photonic
   candlelight into the darkness. == Pragmatic yes. What makes math
   quite useful is that it is agnostic to what it represents - when
   it's representing something. Is it 1000 people or 1000
   electrons? math doesn't care. It's agnostic to what its
   analogizing. But us, we should know the difference. Math doesn't
   care but people should. So math does not see the whole picture
   as the labels are removed from it. = Mathematics is analogy.
   It's perhaps the strongest analogy we have because it doesn't
   care what it's representing. [sometimes even *it* doesn't know
   what it's representing because it can represent intangible
   things] I'm talking about pure math. A and B where all semblence
   to reality is scrubbed from it. How we use it matters. =