This point is by Bill Dembski: it's possible that Rubenstein knows nothing about piano yet hits keys randomly right before perfect music plays. His point is to show that if an infininte number of universes get rid of the anthropic principle, it gets rid of a whole lot of other stuff besides (including, I would add, science).
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments
I suppose if the infinite variations truly represented every logical possibility, then there would be no true underlying physical laws. (As far as I'm aware, though, this isn't what multiverse proposers say.) In that case, there truly would be no "laws" to speak of! Is that what you mean by - there would be no science?
Uh, thinking about what I just said, I am not so sure that the word "bloviation" doesn't apply, but in any case, it's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Regarding infinite variations, I like what Dembski says. He is having fun with logical possibilities, which include a lot of things that, if taken seriously, would seem absurd to us. His real point seems to me to be that if an infinite variety of universes includes these logical possibilities, then how do you know that you don't live in one of them right now? And to the degree that you are unable to give an answer to that question, science no longer seems to look that much like knowledge and more like wishful thinking, i.e., science looks rather unscientific.
In any case, the claim that there is an infinite variety of universes isn't the same as the claim that every logically possible universe exists. If the latter is the case, then the former is too; but not vice versa.