"If that were the case then he wouldn't be able to publish articles on this topic in peer reviewed journals like Phys. Rev. D."
Why not? His math is solid. His physics might even be solid. But the ambiguity of his conclusion I think is rubbish.
The conclusions are not ambiguous. The article on neutrino masses clearly wasn't ambiguous and that one was published in Phys. Rev. D. You can't say that just because you can draw other ambiguous conclusions from his theory (pink elephants climbing trees somewhere etc.) that this isn't science. You can do the same thing with many other theories too.
Is it possible that there are an infinite number of Daniel Morgan's in the universe (that thought ought to create an earthquake in the force). Of course it is. Is it proveable? No. Is it science? No.
It is science as long as you focus on experimentally verifiable predictions. The mere fact that in the multiverse an infinite number of copies of you exists was not the subject of the Phys. Rev. D paper. The paper was about the consequences for neutrino masses.
Once again the claim that Tegmark can "predict nontrivial physical observables." I ask again ... name one. One thing he has predicted that was not already known? I'm not asking for anything that wasn't asked of Einstein or Bohr or any other world-class physicist.
Tegmarks paper predicts bounds for neutrino masses that are stricter than current experimental limits.
If Tegmark is right ... then he is right in some subset of universes ... abd thus he must equally be wrong in just as many. That is not science.
Not all of these subsets are equally likely. That's because you are less likely to exist in places where galaxy formation is inhibited. If in some subset neutrino masses are radically different then you'll hardly have galaxies there. Far less copies of you are living there compared to other subsets. That's how he derives his confidence interval for neutrino masses.
He would be wrong only in marginal subsets, just like you would be wrong if you guess that I am under 7 feet long and I turn out to be longer.
Einstein objected to QM for similar reasons. He didn't like the fact that QM doesn't predict outcomes of experiments. So, you could say that whatever the outcome of an experiment is, it is ''always correct''. But the probability of different outcomes are generally not equal. QM predicts the probabilities and that makes it a scientifically verifiable theory.
