But, if I'm not mistaken, the multiverse hypothesized by Hawkin, and the usual multiverse from String theory is not this mathematical multiverse. In String theory multiverses, not every possible universe is allowed to exist, only universes satisfying string theory conditions. That's not to say those hypothesis are inconsistent -- the String thoery multiverse may exist within the "Mathematical multiverse". Once we accept that falsifiability isn't the only motivation to create theories (say by subscribing to MUH), then we need to accept that maybe our universe is also part of a larger non-observable universe, if and only if this provides a particularly "simple" explanation to our existence.
I don't see how the essentially magical appearance of an incredibly complex set of axioms from nothing at all is a plausible answer to the 'Why something instead of nothing?" question.
To be clear, I have absolutely no idea how to answer that question. I'm certainly not a closet theist. My best guess is that a useful answer is currently some way beyond our pay grade as a species.
So I don't find "Because math" to be any more convincing as an answer than suggesting god did it.
> any more convincing as an answer than suggesting god did it.
Doesn't have the problem of 1) asserting that no other gods exist other than this specific god or group of gods and 2) the issue of who created god.
We don't ask, who put pi about 14% of the way between 3 and 4; that's almost silly.
:)
It would make sense to me that reality, encapsulating all that exists, "is" because "it must be", like Math.
You presume it was created. It might be as valid a question as "who created erosion", aka math is a natural extension of our universe.
Or, more likely IMO, our universe is a natural extension of math.
I get it, but I can't quite wrap my head around a mathematical universe with no substrate. As though any internally consistent ontology with self-aware structures (and, it seems to me, also those without) just "exists" apropos of nothing. What's doing the math?
The multiverse hypothesis (in the style of Tegmark, et al) is partially motivated to render this sort question invalid. You're asking, effectively, "what are the hidden variables behind the multiverse", whereas the idea specifically asserts that there aren't any.
The idea is that what underlies each possible universe is just math, "all the way down".
So the question you're asking is exactly like, who created the sinusoid curve, pi, or prime numbers.
Proving the idea may be impossible. That doesn't make it wrong. If some aspect of reality is not provable, then that can't be helped.
The fascinating thing is that the hypothesis cannot be disproven either. The hypothesis that there is only one universe also isn't provable; the fact that other universes haven't been discovered/accessed doesn't prove it, since lack of evidence of existence isn't a proof of nonexistence.
The hypothesis that there are multiple universes is simpler than the hypothesis that there is just the one. It's more believable, and explains more. For instance, all remarkable coincidences in the structure of our universe are explained via the anthropic principle, which is greatly boosted by the multiple universe hypothesis.