Multiple Reasons for a Multiverse

Chapter
Part of the Astrophysics and Space Science Library book series (ASSL, volume 395)

Abstract

The apparent fine tuning of many of the constants of physics has been used as a design argument for the creation of the universe by an intelligent God. However, an alternative explanation is that there is a huge multiverse with very many different sets of constants of physics, and we are in one in which the constants have values that permit its being observed. Here I shall give several reasons for taking this possibility seriously. Even though multiverse hypotheses undercut one particular argument for design, I shall argue that they are consistent with theism and might be God’s preference for creation.

Keywords

Cosmological Constant External World Fine Tuning Conscious Experience Conscious Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barr, S. (2003). Modern physics and ancient faith. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, J. D. (2002). The constants of nature. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Bostrom, N. (2002). Anthropic bias: Observation selection effects in science and philosophy. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, B. J., & Rees, M. J. (1979). The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature, 278, 605–612.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, B. (1974). Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In M. S. Longair (Ed.), Confrontation of cosmological theory with observational data (pp. 291–298). Dordrecht: Riedel. (Reprinted in Physical cosmology and philosophy, pp. 125–133, by J. Leslie, Ed., 1990. New York: Macmillan.)Google Scholar
  8. Collins, R. (2002). Design and the many-worlds hypothesis. In W. L. Craig (Ed.), Philosophy of religion: A reader and guide (pp. 130–148). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, F. (2006). The language of God. A scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, P. (1982). The accidental universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, P. (2007). Cosmic jackpot: Why our universe is just right for life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. DeWitt, B., & Graham, R. N. (Eds.). (1973). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, B. (2011). The hidden reality: Parallel universes and the deep laws of the cosmos. New York: Knopf.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Guth, A. (1997). The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Holder, R. D. (2004). God, the multiverse, and everything: Modern cosmology and the argument from design. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Kraay, K. J. (2010). Theism, possible worlds, and the multiverse. Philosophical Studies, 147, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Leslie, J. (2001). Infinite minds: A philosophical cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, D. (1990). On the plurality of worlds. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Linde, A. (1990). Particle physics and inflationary cosmology. Chur: Harwood.Google Scholar
  21. Mann, R. B. (2005). Inconstant multiverse. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 57, 302–310.Google Scholar
  22. Manson, N. A. (2003). God and design: The teleological argument and modern science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Page, D. N. (2010). Does God so love the multiverse? In M. Y. Stewart (Ed.), Science and religion in dialogue (Vol. 1, pp. 396–410). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Also on Web http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0246. 17 Jan 2008.
  24. Rees, M. (2000). Just six numbers. New York: Basic Books.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Rees, M. (2001). Our cosmic habitat. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ross, H. (1983). Genesis one. A scientific perspective. Reasons to Believe: Pasadena.Google Scholar
  27. Ross, H. (1988). Design and the anthropic principle. Pasadena: Reasons to Believe.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, H. (1989). The fingerprint of God. Orange: Promise.Google Scholar
  29. Ross, H. (2001). The creator and the cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress.Google Scholar
  30. Susskind, L. (2006). The cosmic landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  31. Swinburne, R. (1990). Argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. In J. Leslie (Ed.), Physical cosmology and philosophy (pp. 154–73). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Swinburne, R. (1991). The existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swinburne, R. (2012). Bayes, God, and the multiverse. In J. Chandler and V. S. Harrison (Eds.), Probability in the Philosophy of Religion (pp. 103–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tegmark, M. (1998). Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory? Annals of Physics, 270, 1–51. Also on Web http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009. 1 Dec 1998
  35. Vilenkin, A. (2006). Many worlds in one: The search for other universes. New York: Hill & Wang.MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Warfield, B. B. (2000). In M. A. Noll & D. N. Livingstone (Eds.), Evolution, science and scripture: Selected writings. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physics, 4-183 CCISUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations