My problem is that the principle of sufficient reason relies on the fact that every complex thing is built in one specific way and not another, but the theory of time-threads mentioned above claims that every thing and every action exist in all their possible forms, and therefore I think this contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, because then we no longer have to ask, “Why does this exist this way and not otherwise?” since it also exists otherwise. Hope I was clear.

And to that I answered there that this “theory” is nonsense. Delusions of strange creatures. In order to avoid the principle of sufficient reason, which wonders about the existence of one thing, they invent infinitely many things for whose existence there is no indication whatsoever.
Notice: before me is a particular state of affairs. The principle of sufficient reason asks why it is as it is. Meaning: why assume that precisely such a thing would emerge without a reason?! And behold the excuse: all kinds of things emerged (without a reason), and everything is nicely settled. Now you need to explain why all of them emerged, and not just this one.
According to this delusion, there is nothing to ask about any particular thing. For example, Reuven won the top lottery prize a thousand times in a row. The police come to investigate. The thread-people say to them (recognize whose seal and threads these are): what do you want, there are infinitely many universes where it didn’t happen, so here this is the universe where it did happen. By the way, this is exactly the foolishness in the anthropic argument, as I explained in my book on evolution.

I’ll add to what Rabbi Michi said—if this theory is correct, then there is also no meaning to continuing scientific research. After all, if from every situation everything will happen (the practical implication of this physical approach is the dragging of quantum randomness into the macro world as well!!), then there is no point in investigating any phenomenon or drawing any conclusion. There is no significance to our past attempts to estimate the probability that a plane will crash in the future. There is no way to predict anything; from every situation, everything that is theoretically possible will happen, and any inference from the present to the future by means of scientific research is a total lie. We can stop developing a vaccine for corona as well (because a world will come into being in which it heals on its own. It’s all just a matter of randomness) and stop doing anything.

Beyond that, it really does not threaten the proofs for God’s existence—
A. It derives from quantum theory, so it too needs a designer.
B. It does not contradict the principle of sufficient reason! It simply provides an answer to the question of why it happened this way and not another way. And the answer is: “Because the physics is such that every possibility will appear.” It did not remove the philosophical question; it supplied a reason. The reason is simply: “because everything will happen.”
If so, then we can continue to ask the question of the principle of sufficient reason about the moment when it was created! The first quantum split. That first split requires a mechanism that requires a reason. In other words, the approach does not make the philosophical need for a reason unnecessary—it simply supplies an alternative kind of reason. But the need for a reason will remain at the head of the chain.

Be that as it may, this is a bizarre theory that hardly any physicist accepts today. If it is true, we can shut down the science departments, and no action we take in life has any significance anymore. Quite simply, every possibility in the world will happen randomly whether or not we make an effort. And in each of those possibilities bizarre creatures will arise, like pink unicorns and every random thing one can imagine (except God, of course). If this is the scientific alternative to God—an alternative whose meaning is the refutation of the scientific idea as a whole and the creation of demons, spirits, pink unicorns, and if someone feels better with that—good luck to him. It’s sad that atheists are so desperate that they’re willing to give up the entire scientific project and invent pink unicorns, all on the basis of a theory for which there is no proof and that almost no one accepts, just in order to make the need for God unnecessary. The problem, as we have seen, is that they don’t even manage to do that.

With typo corrections:

I’ll add to what Rabbi Michi said—if this theory is correct, then there is also no meaning to continuing scientific research. After all, if from every situation everything will happen (the practical implication of this physical approach is the dragging of quantum randomness into the macro world as well!!), then there is no point in investigating any phenomenon or drawing any conclusion. There is no significance to our past attempts to estimate the probability that a plane will crash in the future. There is no way to predict anything; from every situation, everything that is theoretically possible will happen, and any inference from the present to the future by means of scientific research is a total lie. We can stop developing a vaccine for corona as well (because a world will come into being in which it heals on its own. It’s all just a matter of randomness) and stop doing anything.

Beyond that, it really does not threaten the proofs for God’s existence—
A. It derives from quantum theory, so it too needs a designer.
B. It does not contradict the principle of sufficient reason! It simply provides an answer to the question of why it happened this way and not another way. And the answer is: “Because the physics is such that every possibility will appear.” It did not remove the philosophical question; it supplied a reason. The reason is simply: “because everything will happen.”
If so, then we can continue to ask the question of the principle of sufficient reason about the moment when it was created! The first quantum split. That first split requires a mechanism that requires a reason. In other words, the approach does not make the philosophical need for a reason unnecessary—it simply supplies an alternative kind of reason. But the need for a reason will remain at the head of the chain.

Be that as it may, this is a bizarre theory that hardly any physicist accepts today. If it is true, we can shut down the science departments, and no action we take in life has any significance anymore. Quite simply, every possibility in the world will happen randomly whether or not we make an effort. And in each of those possibilities bizarre creatures will arise, like pink unicorns and every random thing one can imagine (except God, of course). If this is the scientific alternative to God—an alternative whose meaning is the refutation of the scientific idea as a whole and the creation of demons, spirits, pink unicorns, and if someone feels better with that—good luck to him. It’s sad that atheists are so desperate that they’re willing to give up the entire scientific project and invent pink unicorns, all on the basis of a theory for which there is no proof and that almost no one accepts, just in order to make the need for God unnecessary. The problem, as we have seen, is that they don’t even manage to do that..

Thank you very much for the enlightening answers, but “M,” I think you have a fundamental mistake in your understanding of the theory. There would still be a need for corona vaccines, because we want to live, and it doesn’t matter to us whether in parallel worlds infinitely many “Ms” and “Avrahams” will live, each one getting a vaccine. So of course we still need to make an effort. And Rabbi, I still didn’t understand what is so terribly foolish about the idea that nothing is special. Either it’s true or it isn’t; the fact that it eliminates the significance of special things doesn’t prevent it from being true. But I really liked M’s answer about the quantum splitting—it answered my question. Thank you very much, and happy holiday to everyone.

Avraham, the opposite. The moment you understand that the randomness reaches the macro level too, you’ll understand that taking the vaccine leads to the creation of 2 worlds—one in which the vaccine helps and one in which it doesn’t. *You* do not continue into the world where it helped. Two versions of you are created—healthy and sick. You are under the illusion that the you who took the vaccine is the one who recovered, but from the taking of it there is also created the you who died. It’s simply an illusion we live in. In this case, the laws of nature are nothing more than an ad hoc historical description of what happened in the world you yourself live in. But from this world infinitely many worlds will be created, with infinitely many versions of you, each of whom will have a different fate. The you who will be in the world that survives will have the *illusion* that the medicine he took helped and that if he takes it again—it will help the next time too. But all of that is an illusion. It’s a bit hard to understand what I wrote here, so I elaborated; try to think about it on your own.

As for what the Rabbi said—that there is no need to be surprised—it is a more focused formulation of what I said, that in this world scientific research has no meaning.

You wrote in your answer: “If so, then we can continue to ask the question of the principle of sufficient reason about the moment when it was created! The first quantum split. That first split requires a mechanism that requires a reason. In other words, the approach does not make the philosophical need for a reason unnecessary—it simply supplies an alternative kind of reason. But the need for a reason will remain at the head of the chain.” As I understand it, sufficient reason asks, “Why is something specifically like this and not otherwise?” I didn’t understand where that question exists at the beginning of the chain. I’d be happy if you would explain. Thank you very much.

I no longer remember what this was about. In any case, even before the first point there exists the quantum character of the world, without which all this could not have happened. The question is why the world was created with a quantum character, and not simply empty or in some other less particular form.

Meaning, the quantum character is complex and exists specifically in a certain form and not in other forms, and therefore one can wonder about its sufficient reason?

Yes. That’s what I wrote.

Thank you very much.