You know, science is all about observation and probably the most tried and true of these observations is the bedrock principle that the simplest solution is most often the best solution.
So from a scientific point of view it is likely the best option, when picking from among a set of possibilities, to generally subscribe to the simplest as it is most likely, however not positively, the correct option. Obviously when you have a set of possible solutions, none of which proven, then you subscribe to the simplest and therefore most likely while allowing exploration of the other possible options as well. So you say, this is the most probable, nonetheless there are these other possibilities that could be the correct fit, however less likely.
If you don’t do it that way then you’re essentially lost in a sea of infinite possibility because there is far more we do not know then what we do know. As far as we know the universe could have been sneezed into existence by a snorgasaur and while this is certainly possible, observation suggests it rather unlikely.
Moreover you’ve got to pull yourself aside and ask yourself to what degree are we getting ahead of ourselves here, how far outside the realm of observability have we traveled? If it’s too far then perhaps pull yourself back a bit to realign yourself with observation. If, in the long run, we reach a point where new observations negate past conclusions then we move forward from that point.
While multi-verse is certainly possible, among pretty much an infinite amount of other possibilities, it is, in my opinion, far from the most likely. There are other theories that are not only simpler, but that also more closely align with observation. That certainly does not mean multi-verse is incorrect, just that at this point in time evidence suggests it is less likely when compared to other possibilities.
When you look at something that is unknown, such as what is a dream, sure you can always say the boogieman did it and quite frankly he certainly could be behind it as far as we know, it just isn’t likely.
When we peer into the brain obviously there’s a lot going on in there. The brain has been called, by some, possibly the most complex object in the universe so it’s probably going to be a long time until we have a good idea of exactly what’s happening.
However; from an observational standpoint I believe that I can say what is complex about the brain is not how it works, but what’s going on while it works.
That is to say how it works is simple cause and reaction, but the path that each reaction takes is terribly complex, at least from our point of view. So, for instance, you have a cause, say person A kicks person B. Where the foot lands a reaction begins, one or more nerve endings fire a signal to their neighboring neuron which then fires a signal to the next neuron. This signal is passed from one neuron to the next until it reaches the brain where it continues to traverse a complex system of interlinked neurons.
From where the signal originates in the body, the signal strength, possibly the speed of the signal combine with signals from other sensory input occurring at the same time causing the signal to traverse one of a great many possible paths in the brain. Like a change receiver in a soda machine, certain properties of the coin determine the path it will take as it travels to the coin collector.
The signal traverses this path, leaving the brain and traveling all the way down to the arm where it causes billions of muscle cells to contract and a resulting punch ensues.
While this is certainly not a proven fact, it is, in my opinion, the simplest solution when compared to multi-dimensional and/or super symmetry theories because it does not rely on unobserved and currently unobservable possibility.
P.S. In the cause and reaction example at no point is there really any decision making going on. Like the coin machine the signal follows a pre-defined path, but there are a wide variety of signals that the brain handles and the brain, unlike todays computers, is quite versatile. Some of those signals don’t take a path leading them to arm muscles, some signals trigger changes in the pathways that exist in the brain altering the paths future signals might take.
So it appears as though we make decisions, it appears as though we can change our mind and conciously react to something one way at one point in time and another way at another point in time, but really the change in reactivity is not due to some internal decision, but instead comes from an external signal that, at one point or another, triggered a change in the brain’s geometry.
Because of the complex nature of the interweaved pathways in the brain and their possibly constant state of change all sorts of things can change. A signal that triggers a change in one pathway could trigger a completely different change at a different point in time if the pathway it took the first time your brain received that signal has, itself, been changed.
These alterations in our brains could be called learning, but really it’s no different than the way the grand canyon was formed or how space dust coelesces into a star.
P.P.S. One person saying they’re smarter than another would be like a volcano saying it’s smarter than a cloud. One person saying they’re better than another would be like Jupiter saying it’s better than Saturn.
