Yes, I think this comment gets it exactly. This kind of research always bothers me because it starts with narratives like the Big Bang and parallel universes and then (ab)uses the data to corroborate them. The problem is that, on a multiversal scale, we really have only one observable data point (our universe) so just about any cognitive model that we can come up with can be used to explain its idiosyncrasies with equal validity.
This result is very different from actually observing many universes bumping into each other, or multiple universes starting from a big bang. It's more like seeing a coin come up heads once, and then claiming that the model "coins always come up heads" is the best model describing that situation.
This result is very different from actually observing many universes bumping into each other, or multiple universes starting from a big bang. It's more like seeing a coin come up heads once, and then claiming that the model "coins always come up heads" is the best model describing that situation.