Why the Multiverse is a Bad Idea

IPs like the MCU, Arrowverse, and even standalone movies like Everything Everywhere All At Once have popularized the once obscure concept of the multiverse. Today, it seems the multiverse is all around us (excuse the meta-pun). It has even pervaded the realms of science and popular notions of identity and purpose in life.

But is the multiverse all that it’s cracked up to be? Is it the panacea that people desperately hope will cure their doubts and fears regarding all the things they can’t explain about the cosmos and their own existence?

The truth is, while the concept of a multiverse makes for some interesting fiction, the multiverse itself is a stupendously bad idea on multiple levels. It fails as an explanatory concept scientifically, philosophically, and theologically.

Scientifically

The multiverse fails as an idea scientifically because it’s the very definition of bad science. Evolution was once derided by creationists as “bad science” because they said it could not be tested or supported experimentally. This line of criticism has all but faded with the rise of new technologies; DNA sequencing, genetic computer modeling, and phylogenetics have made it possible to test and support evolution experimentally, and long term studies conducted over decades have shown evolutionary processes to be quite real.

The concept of a multiverse, however, is truly bad science because it cannot be tested in any meaningful way. Scientists have pointed to anomalies in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) and spooky unexplainable mechanisms in quantum physics as evidence for multiple universes. However, these phenomena cannot seriously be taken as evidence for a multiverse because the explanation would be far more outlandish and improbable than what the evidence warrants. Occam’s Razor becomes helpful here: the simplest explanation is usually preferable over the more tortured ones that stretch imagination beyond reason. In time, it’s highly probable that science will discover an observable, testable, and rational explanation for these anomalies and spooky mechanisms, making the need to appeal to a multiverse unnecessary.

“The concept of a multiverse, however, is truly bad science because it cannot be tested in any meaningful way.”

Scientists have also invoked multiple universes to explain why our universe appears to be extremely and arbitrarily fine-tuned to create just the right conditions for the emergence of intelligent life. Christian theologians have an elegant and powerful argument to explain this (i.e. the fine-tuning argument for God), but scientists have next to nothing. Yes, in theory, if there were an infinite number of universes, it’s reasonable to assume that one of them would turn out to have the right conditions for intelligent life to evolve. But this idea is more of a hope and a prayer than a legitimate scientific theory. With the way scientists are so readily turning to the multiverse to explain such things, no one should say anymore that scientists are skeptics who lack faith! Their eager, child-like faith in the multiverse makes the faith of religious zealots seem lukewarm by comparison.

Philosophically

Scientists aren’t the only ones turning to the multiverse for help in explaining the unexplainable. Arm-chair philosophers are doing the same. People are using the multiverse to explain everything from the origins of existence to determinism and free will. But upon closer inspection, the rising wave of hope that the multiverse offers soon collapses. Yes, the origin of our universe could be explained by a hypothetical implosion of a previous universe, or by the spontaneous bubbling up of many universes caused by quantum fluctuations in an inflation field. But these answers don’t resolve the problem; we’d still need an explanation for the explanation.

If our universe was caused by the collapse of a previous universe, what caused the existence of that previous universe? If our universe was the result of a bubble formed in an inflation field, what caused the existence of that field? Rather than providing a satisfactory explanation, these ideas merely create a cycle of infinite regress. And it does no good to exclaim, like those who believed the earth was supported on the back of a turtle, when pressed to explain what supports the turtle, that “It’s turtles all the way down!”

“If our universe was caused by the collapse of a previous universe, what caused the existence of that previous universe?”

There are far better, more satisfying philosophical explanations for the origin of existence and free will than the multiverse. As with science, it’s best to avoid the allure of the multiverse for philosophical answers. That route may lead to a temporary reprieve but will eventually end in the miry clay of circular reasoning and question begging.

Theologically

The Bible teaches that human beings are special and valuable because they are made in the image of God and are remarkably formed as God’s handiwork or masterpieces (Gen. 1:27; Ps. 139:14; Eph. 2:10). Human beings are like snowflakes; no two are alike, and each one is beautiful in his or her own way. This value, this preciousness, is utterly undone if the multiverse is true. If there are truly an infinite number or copies of you in the multiverse, your worth would be reduced to zero because it would be divided by infinity. The loss of one you is enormous if there is only one you; the loss of one you in a sea of infinite you’s is of no consequence at all.

Not only that, but the multiverse would ruin any sense of moral responsibility human beings possess. One version of the multiverse theory posits that all possibilities that can happen do happen. In other words, reality splits into separate branches whenever a choice is made; the you that chose to gossip splits from the you that chose to hold your tongue. But they are both you. They share the same DNA, the same memories, the same history, characteristics, and soul.

“The loss of one you is enormous if there is only one you; the loss of one you in a sea of infinite you’s is of no consequence at all.”

So, what does this incessant fracturing of reality do to personal responsibility and eternal destiny? One version of you chose to sin, the other chose not to. Does God condemn one and not the other? Is your soul replicated as well as your body? At best, the net average of all the possibilities would end in moral neutrality—net zero—because all the bad choices would cancel out the good ones. At worst, with every second that passes, the number of versions of you doubles or triples, creating a horrorshow-like menagerie of you’s. Trillions of you’s may end up in hell, and trillions of you’s may go to heaven. Which brings up the question, are there trillions of heavens? Are there trillions of versions of Jesus in those trillions of heavens? It’s absurdity to the highest degree.

Conclusion

Oddly, many have found comfort in the idea of a multiverse. They say something along the lines of, “As long as there’s some version of me out there that’s happy and fulfilled, I’m happy.” This is a tragically midguided mindset. It ignores the absurdities multiverses create, and more importantly, the destructive effect multiverses have on individuality and personal value. For all the reasons listed above, and for many more, we should all thank God that the multiverse does not exist. There is only one you, and that’s why you matter and why Christ died to save you, once for all time (Rom. 6:10; 1 Pet. 3:18).

As Hebrews 9:27 says, it is appointed that we die once, and then we face judgment. This life is the only life, the only chance we get. Let’s make the most of it.