Thread:Sera Loveheart/@comment-24503208-20180212232421/@comment-24503208-20180212234328

Anyway my brain hurts from that. The cosmologist in particular admitted there are still some problems with the Multiverse theories and that even more since Metaphysics is a field of philosophy that has its roots. Cosmology is part of metaphysics and same goes for ontology

Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato are all Greek philosophers presented their theorical or hypothetical views on what, why, and how reality is. Even I wasn't sure on that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Anyway, I don't mind if you close the thread.

Edit: I find this criticism of the MUH.

http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/mathematical_universe_i_ain’t_convinced-127841

Edit 2: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the Occam's razor was used before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

I not sure if it is considered a Occam's Razor, but back in that first document (the first link) of more than 1 types of Multiverse yet the author goes back and say that Type I have definite space, not infinite space.

I assume it had to do logical inconsistencies in his work.

Edit 3: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/books/review/our-mathematical-universe-by-max-tegmark.html

This book review also question the reality is a mathematical structure as this ignore all aspects of what, why, or how reality comes into existence. Even I can question the nature of reality as it is.