Isn't reoccurring universes religious, in the sense that it has no physical evidence and requires faith, and therefore is a disqualified explanation? If it is used in a theory, isn't it that one must replace it if the theory wants to survive the validity test? Anyone know of any proof other than the multiverse hypothesis? I can't find any. If anyone has, please post. thanks.

The multiverse theory and the observer-dependent theory are the two basic interpretations for quantum mechanics. They are known as Everettan and Copenhagen interpretations, respectively. They are both, so far, equally correct in predicting quantum phenomena, though they rely on different ways to explain quantum wave functions. The mathematics behind the interpretations is different, but a prediction in MWI should be explainable in Copenhagen. The way they describe quantum happenenings in relation to the observer also changes the way they are percieved, but I think that they are falsifiable. If we somehow branch into another universe, I believe that the Copenhagen interpretation would have a hard time explaining it.

That was kind of beating around the bush, but the multiverse has evidence. We do see its effects in quantum mechanics, just as we see Copenhagen's effects. It has a mathematical foundation, just as Copenhagen does. There are a few axioms that every theory needs, and MWI has more basic axioms than other interpretations, which leads partly to its prevalence. The only thing we need is evidence that can distinguish it from Copenhagen. That is entirely possible.

As for the last sentence, you want proof of what, again?

Admittedly, I thought it was cute the way they took quotes from actual scientists out of context to make themselves look respectable less stupid.

I though it was cuter they "refuted" an argument e-mailed to them (concerning Earth as a thermodynamic open state) while completely neglecting more rigourous thermodynamic arguments, which must have been sent.