Hi Chris,

Thanks! And thanks for your thoughts.

I'm happy that you found this useful and we find some common ground.

All of my positions on Science, Philosophy, and God are tentative only and what makes the most sense to me currently, and are subject to refinement or outright change if I get better arguments or data. Just wanted to articulate what precisely needs refining.

As you mention how Many Worlds may be more empirically or philosophically accessible than the Simulation Hypothesis, I totally agree. So this leads to progress in that we can order our placeholders for ignorance and whether something.

For example, we can test out Inflation by measuring the uniformity of the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and Inflation's correctness "implies" these multiverses. Also, we have different kinds of multiverses. Compare to the Simulation Hypothesis where it might make sense to give up and say we're simulated with no real way to test or refute.

I find that Scientists in general and physicists/cosmologists in particular, even extremely brilliant ones, may introduce philosophy or even theology without even knowing it, and this just leads to artificial solutions or introduces problems.

- Kevin