Skip to main content
Log in

Revisiting the Scientific Nature of Multiverse Theories

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some scientists or philosophers argue that multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and thus not scientific. However, some advocates of multiverse theories have recently argued that although the multiverse is not observable, multiverse theories are indeed falsifiable in principle. Therefore, they share similar features with a conventional scientific theory. On the other hand, the proposals of an epistemic shift and nonempirical theory assessment have possibly revived the discussions of the scientific nature of multiverse theories. In this article, I revisit the falsifiable arguments made by the advocates of multiverse theories and show that these arguments do not justify arguing the scientific nature of such theories. Moreover, even if we accept the proposals of the epistemic shift and the nonempirical theory assessment, I argue that multiverse theories still cannot pass or satisfy the required assessments based on the new theoretical virtues and the nonempirical arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. The quote appears in the abstract of the article. However, the article published in the book does not have the abstract. It only appears in the article published in arXiv:1801.05016.

References

  • Aguirre, A. 2006. Where did it all come from? Sky and Telescope, November, 36–41.

  • Autermann, C. 2016. Experimental status of supersymmetry after the LHC Run-I. Progress in particle and nuclear physics, 90, 125–155.

  • Barnes, L. 2012. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29: 529–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borde, A., A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin. 2003. Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete. Physical Review Letters 90: 151301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, B. 2007. Introduction and overview. In Universe or Multiverse? ed. B. Carr, 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, B., and G. F. R. Ellis. 2008. Universe or Multiverse. Astronomy and Geophysics 49: 2.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S. 2018. Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. arXiv:1801.05016.

  • Carroll, S. 2019. Beyond falsifiability: normal science in a Multiverse. In Why trust a theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics, eds. R. Dawid, R. Dardashti, and K. Thébault, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDF Collaboration. 2022. High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector. Science 376: 170–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, C. 2018. Doubts for Dawid’s non-empirical theory assessment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 63: 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. H. 2019a. A comment on ‘cosmology and convention’ by David Merritt. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 50: 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. H. 2019b. Is the history of our universe finite? Theology and Science 17: 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. 2007. The teleological argument. In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, eds. C. Meister, and P. Copan, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, G. 2009. Theism and explanation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawid, R. 2013. String theory and the scientific method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dawid, R. 2019. The significance of the non-empirical confirmation in fundamental physics. In Why trust a theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics, eds. R. Dawid, R. Dardashti, and K. Thébault, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G. F. R. 2011. Does the Multiverse really exist? Scientific American 305: 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. 1988. Against method. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flew, A. 2007. There is a God. New York: Harper One.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, J., and A. Vilenkin. 2006. Anthropic prediction for Λ and Q catastrophe. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 163: 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, F. J. S., and M. Alfonseca. 2014. Fine tuning explained? Multiverses and cellular automata. Journal of General Philosophy of Science 44: 153–172.

  • Harman, G. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review 74: 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawking, S., and L. Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, L.-G., and K. Matsubara. 2011. String theory and general methodology: a mutual evaluation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42: 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kragh, H. 2014. Testability and epistemic shifts in modern cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 46: 48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Linde, A., and V. Vanchurin. 2010. How many universes are in the multiverse? Physical Review D, 81, article id. 083525.

  • Lipton, P. 1991. Inference to the best explanation. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. 2008. Some swans are grey. New Scientist 198 (10 May): 44–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, D. 2017. Cosmology and convention. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 57: 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, D. 2007. Predictions and tests of multiverse theories. In Universe or Multiverse? ed. B. Carr, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, R. 1990. The emperor’s new mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. 1965. Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovelli, C. 2019. The dangers of non-empirical confirmation. In Why trust a theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics, eds. R. Dawid, R. Dardashti, and K. Thébault, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, M.-J. 2014. Worlds without end: the many lives of the multiverse. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. 1975. Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. 2019. The design argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staley, K. 2014. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. 2006. The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. 1973. An introduction to confirmation theory. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. 1998. Argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. In Modern cosmology and philosophy, ed. J. Leslie, New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegmark, M. 2007. The multiverse hierarchy. In Universe or Multiverse? ed. B. Carr, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaas, R. 2010. Multiverse scenarios in cosmology: classification, cause, challenge, controversy, and criticism. Journal of Cosmology 4: 664–673.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. EdUHK 18606721).

Funding

Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. EdUHK 18606721).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Man Ho Chan is the only author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Man Ho Chan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

No

Ethical Approval

It does not involve any human data or ethical issue.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, M. Revisiting the Scientific Nature of Multiverse Theories. J Gen Philos Sci 55, 137–151 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09644-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09644-7

Keywords

Navigation