Proponents of the multiverse argue that the fact our universe is fine-tuned for life points to the existence of a multiverse. More universes, they claim, leads to a higher chance that there would be at least one universe with the right conditions for life. But Philip Goff here argues this argument is the result of faulty reasoning - the result of what is known as the inverse gambler's fallacy.
This piece was written in response to this article.
According to our current best physics, our universe is fine-tuned for life. Let me be totally clear about what this means, as there are a lot of misunderstandings. The claim is just that, for life to be possible, certain numbers in physics had to fall in a very narrow range. For example, if the force that powers the accelerating expansion of the universe had been a little stronger, everything would have shot apart so quickly that no two particles would have ever met. There would have been no stars, planets, or any kind of structural complexity. Whereas if that force had been significantly weaker, it would not have counteracted gravity, and so the entire universe would have collapsed back on itself a split second after the Big Bang. For there to be structural complexity, and therefore life, that strength of this force had to be – a bit like Goldilocks porridge – not too strong, and not too weak: just right. There are many numbers like this, which is what it means to say our universe is fine-tuned for life.
Join the conversation