But, who knows?
When it comes to science, for me, there is no "belief" as much as I accept everything for which it is perverse to withhold provisional assent, given the current (but always developing) evidence. As science develops, my level of assent changes with science.
I still think it is reasonable to withhold assent to the multiverse theory, so while I am open to it and all other theories once hypotheses are tested, I'm not ready to go into the multiverse yet.
Tangent on belief vs. assent for science: The climatists have tried to change science into a belief system. You must believe in "their science, their truth, or you are a heretic. I think they do harm to science. There are settled aspects to climate science and climate history. But precise predictions about the future, and precise effects of their many proposed solutions, and the need for them, are not so settled. They are guesses. That doesn't meant we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment for future generations. But, it also doesn't mean it is reasonable to rob future generations of their money by going into debt now to line the pockets of Democrat donors, sanctimonious self-justified by mere guesses, for unproven "solutions."