Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?

[Whateverist]

Yes, it is.   Neither theory nor observation insist the supposedly parallel propositions as you put it must be really independent of each other.   All that is required by the fact that our universe appears to be headed towards an end state very different from its initial state is each successive proposition is not required to actually be made from the end state of another.

And so it's not an infinite regression. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too, i.e. propose some sort of multiverse and try to dress it up as an infinite regression.

And some might say you're just trying to have your god and pretend like you care about the truth too.

---

---

OK, let's look at it closer.

Think of an infinite foam.  Let's say if any bubble

As the bubbles are analogous to universes, the foam is analogous to a multiverse. You're giving yourself an infinite number of universes as a starting position. No one bubble needs another for its existence. They're already there.

in the foam pops, it would destabilize an adjacent bubble and cause that to pop as well.  So each popping of a bubble is attributable to the popping of another bubble in an infinite regression.

Now you're adding popping to dress it up like an infinite regression.

Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop.

Yes, but only because you gave yourself a multiverse to begin with.

In a like manner, the fact that our universe appear to be headed towards some end state wildly different from what appeared to have been its beginning state does not show its beginning is therefore not part of infinite regression.

If you're limiting yourself to what we know - our universe - and not giving yourself an infinite multiverse as a starting point, then yes, you do need a mechanism to get from the end of one universe to the beginning of another.

Further, if you're giving yourself a multiverse, you don't need one universe to be dependent on another. They're already there as a given.

---

And define why it is not?

Either each instantiation itself, or the detaileds of each instantiation, is made possible by a prior instantiation, which in turn depends upon yet another, going back along an infinite chain.  How is that not infinite regression?

See above.

You just can't admit you didn't, or more likely won't, see how infinite regression - not necessarily true but already too threatening to the canard cited to justify the need for theistic creation bullshit - can be embedded in different flavor a of cosmologies consistent with observation.

A multiverse as a starting point is not "consistent with observation." We have observed exactly one universe.

---

And if a multiverse is indeed the case, exactly one universe is all we ever will observe.  If there is a way to look beyond this one, no one has yet found it.  Not being able to look beyond the universe wherein we reside is consistent with there being a multiverse.