# Does a multiverse appear likely?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-multiverse-appear-likely/613009>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [February 16, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-multiverse-appear-likely/613009 "2012-02-16T04:28:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-multiverse-appear-likely/613009/41 "2012-02-21T09:19:06Z")

</div>

> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> Well, it’s one of them. There’s also the question of if there’s only one universe, what is stopping more universes from being born? If a process exists that can do so once, why wouldn’t it do so many times? Multiverse theories also seem more in line with the Copernican Principle; asserting that we live in the one and only universe is an assertion that we are special; unique. Rather like the historical practice of cultures claiming they lay at the center of the world.

I agree with you. I say that the anthropic principle is the cornerstone of multiverse/many-worlds theories because, not only is it what disposes of all fine-tuning, arbitrariness and “why this universe” questions (it is the little over-achiever which by itself removes all the bloat in monoverse theory), but it is perhaps _the only principle needed_ (!) in a physical theory beyond the assumption of ontological symmetry (via something like modal realism). I would even go further and argue (perhaps not any further in this thread though) that the anthropic principle is the generator of the illusion of consciousness.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-multiverse-appear-likely/613009.md?page=2)