Skip to main content
Log in

Evil twins and the multiverse: distinguishing the world of difference between epistemic and physical possibility

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Physicists Brian Greene and Max Tegmark both make variants of the claim that if the universe is infinite and matter is roughly uniformly distributed that there are infinitely many “people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.” In this paper I argue that, while our current best theories in astrophysics may allow one to conclude that we have infinitely many duplicates whose lives are identical to our own from start to finish, without either further advances in physics or advances in fields like biology, psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy, Greene’s and Tegmark’s claims about the ways in which our duplicates lives will differ from our own are not a consequence of our best current scientific theories. Rather, I argue that Greene and Tegmark’s conclusions rely on philosophically imprecise usages of the language of “possibility.”

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Greene (2011), p. 10.

  2. Tegmark (2003), p. 41.

  3. Tegmark (2003), p. 41.

  4. Greene (2011), pp. 10–36.

  5. For a philosophical criticism of Tegmark’s version of DP, see Porpora (2013), and for a philosophical defense see Curtis (2015).

  6. Tegmark (2003), p. 41.

  7. Greene (2011), pp. 34–35.

  8. An alternative way to understand the scenarios that follow in a friendlier manner to a physical reductionist would be to claim that the observations that follow about what seem to be macro-level limiting factors at least indicate that there are additional laws of physics we’ve yet to discover that provide for additional physical limitations on what matter arrangements are physically possible. I will suppress this alternative way of framing the observations for the time being but will return to it later.

  9. Green (2011), p. 33.

  10. For a taste of the debate surrounding the causal closure of physics and whether the special sciences can ultimately be reduced to physics or not, see Papineau (2009) in favor of reduction and Fodor (1997) against. I currently favor the anti-reductionist view, which perhaps explains why I have been drawn to organizing my argument the way that I have. But one who embraces the causal closure of physics and a physical reductionist view can just as easily raise qualms with Tegmark and Greene’s arguments for ETP by showing how they’ve helped themselves to saying all sort of states of affairs are possible without providing physical explanations for how these states of affairs could arise.

  11. Thanks to Christina Conroy, Ioan Muntean, and especially Chapman Waters for useful conversations on matters related to this paper. And thanks to the two anonymous reviewers from this journal for their extremely helpful and insightful comments.

References

  • Curtis, B. L. (2015). On there being infinitely many thinkable thoughts: A reply to Porpora and a defence of Tegmark. Philosophia, 43, 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1997). Special sciences: Still autonomous after all these years. Nous, 31, 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. (2011). The hidden reality: Parallel universes and the deep laws of the cosmos. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papineau, D. (2009). The causal closure of the physical and naturalism. In A. Beckermann, B. P. McLaughlin, & S. Walter (Eds.), Oxford Handbook in Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porpora, D. V. (2013). How many thoughts are there? Or why we likely have no Tegmark duplicates 1010115 m away. Philosophical Studies, 163, 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegmark, M. (2003). Parallel universes. Scientific American, 288, 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Satta.

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

Satta, M. Evil twins and the multiverse: distinguishing the world of difference between epistemic and physical possibility. Synthese 198, 1153–1160 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02092-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02092-1

Keywords

Navigation