I've recently re-read Dawkins's article from a few years back titled Why There Almost Certainly Is No God. This time I think I gleaned a valuable insight. After saying that "Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe – everything we can see – is only one universe among perhaps billions.", he goes on to talk about how the anthropic principle (we're here, and it's not strange that life happened–since we're here) grants the luck needed to beat the near impossible odds of nature coming together as it has, i.e. the universe, life, consciousness, etc. In his final paragraph he concludes:
That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
The first time I read this article I wasn't deeply satisfied with his answer since it was in this same catagory–the fantasies we are unable to disprove catagory–that I placed these billions of universes, right there along with those mythological woodland creatures and nordic lightning champions. I mean, they have not been observed in any way. And in fact it seemed to me that the idea itself is basically just a handy prop that gives the anthropic principle and natural selection a chance to do their stuff.
But . . .
what if one day technology does advance to the point to where other universes actually are observed and there are in fact billions of them, each with their own conditions and even rules? Wouldn't that then mean that in some universe out there is possibly a planet finely-tuned for fairies and leprechauns and unicorns? In fact, given limitless chances to come about, it turns out that it actually is very very probable.
So while we may be unable to disprove unicorns, that would then be irrelevant since we would be able to prove them!
I think I'm on to something. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go look up the definition of unparsimonious.