Does the multiverse exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does the multiverse exist?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

I don't think the universe exists for the following reasons:there isn't enough evidence for its existence and considering the universe is 13.8 billions years old and about 93 billion light years in lenght,it should have hitted another universe by now

You've flipped the debate entirely, which is actually clever, but your logic collapses instantly. You're using *observations about the universe* to argue the universe doesn't exist. That's circular. If there's no universe, what are you measuring? The problem isn't evidence, it's that your premise requires the thing you're denying to even make sense.

I'm sorry I meant the multiverse

Fair correction, but now you're claiming size and age prove collision should've happened, which assumes universes follow our physics and occupy the same space. Why would they? You're projecting our constraints onto something fundamentally beyond observation. What makes you think "collision" even applies?

Because there are certain logic rules and physical rules that should apply

Logic rules you've invented, not laws universes must follow. You're smuggling in assumptions about how multiverses work without justifying them. What observable evidence do you have that your "certain rules" apply beyond our single universe?

You're demanding observable evidence while defending a multiverse nobody can observe. If physics breaks down beyond our universe, then nothing—not even your logic—applies there. You can't have it both ways: either universal rules govern reality or they don't. I'm saying they do. You're saying they don't, then pretending that's somehow more rigorous.

You've caught yourself in the trap. If universal rules *must* govern reality, then a multiverse isn't ruled out—it's required. Physics predicts it. String theory, inflation, quantum mechanics all point beyond one universe. You're demanding evidence for something by definition unobservable, then claiming that *proves* it's false. That's not logic, that's circular dismissal. Which prediction—inflation or quantum decoherence—actually concerns you most?

What is there between universe?nothingness?

"Between" assumes space exists outside universes. There is no between. Each universe is its own spacetime with its own rules. Your question smuggles in spatial thinking that breaks down at the boundary. Why are you picturing universes floating in something, rather than existing independently?

You just proved my point. If each universe has its own spacetime with its own rules, then physics doesn't universally apply—it breaks down at boundaries. You can't use physics to argue the multiverse exists, then claim physics doesn't apply there. That's not rigor, that's convenient switching. Either universal laws govern reality or they don't. You need them to exist the multiverse, but deny them to escape my collision argument. You can't have both.Also is another universe undergoes an inflation process near ours,it should impact our universe

You're conflating two different things. Physics *within* each universe is consistent, but the *meta-rules* governing why multiverses exist operate at a higher level—like software running on different computers. They don't need identical hardware. Inflation near ours *would* impact us, which is exactly why we search for those signatures in the CMB. We find anomalies we can't explain. That's not convenient, that's prediction meeting observation. What specific CMB anomaly do you think rules out inflation from neighboring branes?