Notes
- This is a posting to the author’s Blog. As it’s so brief, I’ve reproduced the whole post.
- It attracted a large number of Comments, which I’ve not yet read. For now I’ve just added a few footnotes, and intend to add a more substantial response when I’ve read the Comments.
- This post was referenced at the end of "Goff (Philip) - Is the Universe a conscious mind?" to say that Goff has now had a change of mind on fine-tuning, as explained here.
Full Text
- I’ve spent the last few months exploring an unorthodox explanation of cosmological fine-tuning, which I discuss in this article1 and this talk2. Part of my motivation was dissatisfaction with the two more conventional alternatives: God and the multiverse hypothesis. And part of the my dissatisfaction with the multiverse hypothesis was rooted in Roger White’s intriguing article3 arguing that the multiverse hypothesis doesn’t even explain the fine-tuning. As I said in a couple of recent talks on fine-tuning, it wasn’t that I was happy with the theory I’d come up with; to paraphrase Churchill4, the view I was considering seemed to me to be the worst explanation of fine-tuning apart from all the others.
- However, I think I’ve just changed my mind on the White article. White’s essential point is that what we want explained is why this universe is fine-tuned, whilst the postulation of a multiverse only explains why a universe is fine-tuned (I’m sure many will right now be screaming “But what about the Anthropic Principle/selection effect????”…see my discussion in the talk from 17:50-24:505).
- However, at a recent talk I gave on this topic at Rutgers University, a discussion with Eddie Chen6 made me appreciate that this distinction collapses if the laws of nature are not contingent, that is to say, if our universe had to have7 the laws it has (and I’m independently attracted8 to philosophical views in which this is the case).
- If our universe had to have the laws of nature it in fact has, then it had to be fine-tuned, so long as it exists. This doesn’t mean that the fine-tuning puzzle goes away; it just turns into a different question. The question is not “Why is our universe fine-tuned?” but “Why does our fine-tuned universe exist rather any of the many very similar universes that aren’t fine-tuned?” Crucially, the multiverse theory can explain this9: If there is a high enough number of universes, then there is likely to be one which, like ours, is fine-tuned.
- So I’m now back to thinking probably some form of the multiverse hypothesis, perhaps the quantum mechanical version10, is the best explanation of the fine-tuning. But I don’t regret exploring my “middle way” hypothesis. It’s philosophically important to explore new theories and explanations, and to try things out. After all, philosophers are supposed to question everything. It’s a shame that our intellectual climate makes this difficult. We pride ourselves on being liberal and free thinking, but it was hard to talk about this stuff. I could feel myself been categorised as11 “religious” or “new age” just for trying out a view.
- Of course, we shouldn’t get lost in flights of fancy, but we should examine the arguments without prejudice. This was the enlightenment aim, but somewhere along the way that aim was replaced by dogmatic adherence to an ideological view of what science is “supposed to look like”. I look forward to the day when the enlightenment ideal of rigorous objectivity12 overcomes, once and for all, such ideologies.
Comment:
In-Page Footnotes
Footnote 1: Footnote 2: Footnote 3: Footnote 4: Footnote 5:
- See YouTube: Philip Goff - "Did the Universe Design Itself?" (17:50-24:50). The link in the Blog is random.
- This presents Roger White’s case.
- This is effectively that – while the Anthropic Principle is fair enough to explain why – if there is a multiverse – we have to be in a Universe that supports life, this gives us no reason to believe in a multiverse in the first place. Or so I think, not having yet read White’s paper!
Footnote 6: Footnote 7:
- What does this really mean, and why should it be the case?
Footnote 8:
- Why is this? Because of ‘our universe’ choosing its parameters so that life evolves?
Footnote 9:
- Currently – while I understand the basic idea behind the multiverse – I’m confused about the fine points being argued here. Maybe the Comments will be enlightening?
Footnote 10:
- What is this version? The only QM ‘multiverse’ I’m aware of is the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of QM where the universe splits at every quantum event, but this isn’t the same thing as a cosmological multiverse (is it). Aren’t the Laws of Physics held constant across worlds in the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of QM?
- I probably need a Note on Multiverses. For now, see Wikipedia: Multiverse.
Footnote 11:
- Well, if you covet grants from the Templeton Foundation, that’s what you’re in for.
- I think ‘free thinking’ philosophers need to be responsible, lest people take them as ‘authorities’ and – like in "Ward (Keith) - Review - Goff - Why? The Purpose of the Universe" – claim that such-and-such is ‘in the air’ or even ‘is a modern consensus’ when it is nothing of the sort.
Footnote 12:
- There are two sides to this coin;
- Facing up to problems, rather than brushing them under the carpet.
- Coming up with ‘rigorous solutions’ rather than wild speculation that hasn’t even been sketched out in any detail.
- I view much of Goff’s work as – like he says – ‘flights of fancy’ when it comes to the second point.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2025
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)