-2

I am having trouble understanding how exactly the multiverse solves fine tuning. It is said that if there are an infinite number of universes, each with similar laws but different constants, most would not produce life. However, one or a few of them will, hence having constants fine tuned for life is considered not surprising.

But doesn’t this just shift the “improbability” back further? For starter’s, one can imagine a whole set of different multiverses, each containing different laws and constants. In fact, one can imagine any number of universes within the multiverse that lead to life or non-life in an infinite numbers of ways with vastly different probability distributions. Given that we have no way to choose among these, how does the multiverse explain away the problem of fine tuning? Any one we choose may be just as improbable as our universe if it was the only one! When dealing with these kinds of epistemic probabilities where we have no prior information to calculate them, it seems that you can almost invent whichever probability space you like!

It is true that all explanations bring a further why to them. When we find out that Arthur caused the death of John, we have now explained the death of John even if we have further questions about why Arthur killed John.

But we only postulate Arthur as a cause of his death if we have independent reason/evidence to suggest that this is the case (independent as in apart from the mere fact that a death occurred). We don’t simply invent this explanation out of thin air just because it would make an event make more sense to us. Even something like evolution would have been just as supported as the theory that all animals were created as they are if we didn’t have independent evidence for it.

As such, unless there is independent physical evidence of the multiverse (which I’m not sure we can access anyways), what motivation do we have to posit a multiverse in the first place?

EDIT: This was closed because of a supposedly related question but the related question has to do with undermining intelligent design. This question has nothing to do with intelligent design.

Baby_philosopher
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • 22
  • 1
    it might help if you defined "fine tuning" and how the multiverse is meant to get around it, with quotes from your reaidng/how you got here, ideally. have you gone through the search – user66697 Feb 04 '24 at 13:00
  • "We don’t simply invent this explanation out of thin air" - was the explanation of a being outside of the universe invented out of thin air? I reject both the mutiverse and a deity explanation because we have no idea how likely any of the universal constants actually are, or what the universe would've looked like otherwise, and we wouldn't have been here to ask that question if it did form differently, so there may not even be anything to be explained.. And both those explanations add unsupported claims that don't explain things any better than other conceivable explanations. – NotThatGuy Feb 04 '24 at 16:58

1 Answers1

0

Humans have a tendency to believe the whackiest ideas with no supporting evidence. Positing an infinite number of undetectable Universes might be seen by some as the blunt resort of a person unable to suggest a more intelligent explanation. I do it all the time. Only this morning I suggested an overnight proliferation of Universes might account for the fact that I had left the milk out of the fridge. Sadly, my lovely wife had too much common sense to fall for it, which is more than can be said for MWI fans and their friends.

user66697
  • 639
  • 11
Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64