That seems to imply intent. Forces beyond mortal control or comprehension decided that these particular two or three universes were "close" enough to connect, making travel between them possible.
No, that's just what I'm saying, that intent has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about physical interaction. On the most fundamental level, human thoughts and intentions and decisions are merely an emergent property of the interaction of large and complex ensembles of subatomic particles exchanging forces in compliance with the laws of physics. So as far as physics is concerned, an interaction with conscious intent behind it is no different from an interaction with no mind behind it at all.
This is what a lot of people don't get about quantum mechanics and Schroedinger's Cat. They believe it's saying that conscious observation causes quantum states to resolve, that nothing would exist without a thinking being to observe it, but that's wrong. Conscious observation is merely one example of physical interaction between ensembles of particles -- one such ensemble being the observer's brain, another being the instrument they're measuring with. The reason scientists talk about quantum interaction in terms of conscious observation is because scientists report the specific results of their experiments rather than speaking in universals, and their experiments involve people observing and measuring stuff. But the answer to the Schroedinger's Cat paradox is that interaction with
any large ensemble of particles -- whether it's the scientist or the box or the cat or the valve that releases the poison -- will have the same resolving effect on the quantum state of the radioactive isotope. It happens whether there's a conscious mind observing it or just a simple mechanism mindlessly reacting to it. Physically, there's no meaningful difference between those two types of interaction.
So I'm talking about interaction, not decision. Two things can't become connected unless they initially interact. And in an infinite multiiverse, the odds of any two given universes interacting are infinitesimal. Which is why I don't think "infinite multiverse" models are useful as explanations.
As to your point about "deciding," it's our own anthropocentric bias that leads us to assume that a process of selection can only be the result of a conscious mind. That's the fallacy behind the idea of Intelligent Design, the belief that the suitability of anatomical features for a given function "proves" that a sentient designer must have decided to make them that way. That's not true at all. Selection routinely happens as a result of the influence of the laws of physics or the conditions of a situation. Roll a bunch of rocks downhill, and you don't have to decide that the round ones will roll better than the flat ones -- they just will. That selection will be made by physics and circumstances, not by conscious preference. Ditto for evolutionary traits -- the more viable traits select themselves simply by working better than the alternatives. Selection does not imply conscious decision or preference.
I feel a bit too old for that.
