Do we really live in a multiverse? The philosopher says no

In an article published in The Conversation, British philosopher and author Philip Goff writes, multiverse theory advocates a significant fine-tuning of physical constants to explain the existence of life. According to this hypothesis of theoretical physics, our Universe would be one of infinite universes, each of which has its own physical laws.

To illustrate the hypothesis that certain numbers in physics must be within a very narrow range for life to exist, some physicists talk about the power of dark energy, which causes the rapid expansion of the Universe. If it were any stronger, the matter wouldn’t even be able to clump together. And since no particles would coalesce, there would be no stars, no planets, and no life forms.

On the other hand, if this force were weaker, it could not neutralize gravity. In other words: The universe would have collapsed in on itself in the first second of the Big Bang, following the same order: no stars, no planets, no life.

Is the multiverse theory a scientific fact?

Yes and no, Goff replies. “From where? The Purpose of the Universe,” he says, and says that multiverse theorists have fallen into the “inverse player fallacy” by using the fine-tuning hypothesis. Goff gives the example of a hypothetical bingo player named Betty who, after matching all the numbers on her card at the first meeting, thought many people were playing that night.

But this is a logical fallacy, because the number of people playing bingo at other halls around the country had no effect on the likelihood of Betty getting the numbers right the first time. Even if there are many, few, or no bingo players in the game, Betty’s lucky streak will always remain highly unlikely.

If we transfer Betty’s flawed reasoning to the multiverse, we can say this: that there are many universes with different physical constantsThis does not increase the likelihood that our Universe has the right constants for life.

How does Goff reject the multiverse?

Since scientific information shows that the physical constants of our Universe have remained constant since the Big Bang, we have two options. Or is it just an incredible coincidence that we have the right numbers? Or are numbers just like that because nature somehow “Intended to enhance complexity and life through a natural and invisible principle.”says Goff.

Since the author understands that the first option is too unlikely to be taken seriously, he advocates the second option in his book: a cosmic goal.

Drawing an analogy to the break in the geocentrism paradigm in the 16th century, Goff states that the current obsession with fine-tuning is the same as those who argue that the Earth is the center of the Universe. And he concludes: One day, we may be surprised that we ignored the obvious for so long: The universe supports the existence of life”.

Did you like the content? Tell us on our social networks and get the opportunity to share the article with your friends who like these topics.