These are neat questions, NTTP.
The Multiverse is a step beyond the scientific data, and could have come about only when a scientific model is inaccurate.
First off, if one mixes letters and numbers into a comprehensive system, then all contents is correct. There is nothing wrong with these letters or numbers.
It is their combination, the melding of different sets of information into one system, that causes the wrong conclusions to be made.
So, the fine point is to not look at the data nor at the results (i.e. the Multiverse), but at the foundation that is used. What is there inside the mind proposing this? What platform was used?
For there to be a Multiverse, the regular word Universe must be a unit.
It is not.
The word Omniverse is already a better description, but most folks are used to the word Universe. It is a concept that captures all there is, even when the human mind cannot capture all there is. The word captures all of existence, seen and unseen.
From this point on, it should be possible to look at the System of 1.
What makes this System of 1 special is that it isn't really a system because there is just 1 word in total. There is no zero, there is no other number next to 1 in this System of 1. There are not many words that are a System-of-1 words.
Mankind.
Note how this word is specific and generic at the same time. It includes all human beings, from the very first all the way to those that have not been born yet (but will be born).
Can one declare there to be two Mankinds? No, because any form that is human will be part of Mankind, and any other form of life would be declared something else.
Another example is that word Life. Life is Life, no matter how many forms of Life there are, here or elsewhere in the Universe. There is no plural to Life.
The list of 1-words is short:
All, Everything, Nature, God, Whole, Balance, Universe.
There are a few more but what they have in common is that they are concepts for which the details are not declared, yet their essence is considered true, correct, accepted.
Not every word fits exactly in this category, but I think you understand that it is inside the human mind that these 1-words got conjured. We are capturing either the whole or a specific whole, and we don't have to worry about calling out all details because everything is covered by the word.
--
Some physicists use 1-words as if they are normal words, okay for them to be used in science.
The Theory of Everything is a term that is not scientific because the word Everything is not a scientific word.
There is no scientific foundation to the word Everything, and there is also no scientific foundation to the word Universe. It's 'just' a concept that declares something we subsequently understand without a problem.
The Universe is a collective term that includes parts that are in total conflict with one another. Space is infinite, Matter is always finite. Universe = Space + Matter. No problem for a 1-word concept to capture contradicting parts.
I think you got it, NTTP. I think you understand the point (probably got it early on).
Let's use infinity to quickly look at what is going on.
Besides space being infinite, there isn't anything else that is infinite. There is no scientific ground to the word infinite. Space itself not an entity, but rather a phenomenon, which means it is real but has no attributes of its own
Infinity is used by scientists, and that is correct only if they stepped into a virtual reality. In the virtual realm, one can work with infinity without a problem. Yet the point is then that the infinity aspect is accepted from the start, so the person proclaiming this will be someone who walked into a rabbit hole first and then made the rabbit hole the whole there is.
That is fine of course, but.... Don't bring whatever was found in the rabbit hole back to the real world and declare that virtual reality real.
--
My last point to make is that scientists do not work just with data. They also put that data on paper and then work with that data on paper.
That means they added a dimension to the data, and in that dimension they can get lost, finding a truth on paper that is incorrect.
When a person draws a perfect Cyclops on paper, then everything can be shown correctly: the hair, the ears, the nose, the mouth, and even the single eye is a correct single eye.
As long as this is called out as an artificial outcome, then this is fine.
We can even close an eye and see for ourselves what a Cyclops would see.
Yet a person must be aware that the single eye is still either with the left or with the right side of the face. The eye remaining open did not move to the center of the face.
In short, the mistake that physicists are making is extremely simple, and extremely simple to make. When they declare an aspect to have zero value, like closing an eye, they should not reorganize the remaining parts without the original circumstances. The original circumstances remain in place, even when something ended up having zero value.
When scientists try to unify everything, then they walked into a rabbit hole first and then they want to lure you in there with them.
