Biocentrism vs. the Multi-Universe Hypothesis

Biocentrism asserts that our Universe exists the way it does because we are here. Whereas the Multi-Universe hypothesis states that we are here because an infinity of universes exist, and this is the one where our kind of life can evolve.

However, the study of quantum physics has put this latter idea into a bind. The Multi-Universe idea is only proposed as a way to exclude any possibility of the existence of God. But that doesn't work. Quantum physics has shown that consciousness is essential to existence.

This is the resulting argument:

1. Quantum physics shows that reality is "fuzzy" until phenomena are observed.

2. Any universe that remains "fuzzy" cannot sustain itself, and will eventually fall apart. (At some point, the conditions for that universe to sustain itself will fail because they did not actualize as and when needed.)

3. Observation requires a reactive series of following consequences.

4. Reactive consequences require particular sets of natural laws & constants.

5. Certain sets of natural laws & constants allow for the development of life, as a result of reactive consequences.

6. The phenomena of life thrive only when performing observant behavior.

7. Linear relativistic time is not a restraint for quantum physical phenomena.

8. The potential to be observed is approximately equivalent to having been observed, insofar as such a condition prolongs the sustainability of the system.

9. No universe lacking any potential for being observed will continue to exist.

10. Only those universes that have natural laws & constants capable of producing life have the potential for being observed and will therefore continue in existence.

11. No universe can be observed by any series of reactive observations which are not compatible with its own set of natural laws & constants.

12. Only those universes compatible with the existence of any particular life form can be observed by that life form. (Any universe can only be observed by a life form which is compatible within that universe.)

13. Therefore: only those universes which we are able to observe actually exist for us.

Aside:
Heaven does not exist "for us" because we can not observe it. If it exists (an article of faith), it exists for God. And if He wants us to be able to live there, He will have to "save" and transform us into a compatible form in order to translate us into that existence.

Therefore, only if another consciousness exists can there be any other universe that exists. Any universe that we will be able to discover and observe will be merely one more part of our own universe, or in some way identical with it.

Until we discover some life forms that have originated from somewhere other than Earth, we won't know if other life forms can even exist in this universe. At this point, we only assume that they can, and probably do, but we can't guess how different they could possibly be.

And a second, logically decisive argument:

The multiverse theory leads inevitably to the absurdity of asserting that everything, even the impossible, has happened somewhere. It's not worth discussing, since we can never access other universes. And since, if it's true, the impossible has happened, we then have another "Fermi Paradox" because none of those other universes has contacted us.

So, the theory contains its own refutation: there are no other universes, for exactly the same reason that we are sure that time travel into the past is impossible. Where are they? No one from elsewhere has visited us, even if the impossible and improbable must have already happened.