Many physicists think we live in a multiverse. But they're getting a simple math rule wrong.

An illustration of brown, gold and green spheres in various sizes.
(Image credit: Dr Norbert Lange/Shutterstock)

One of the most startling scientific discoveries of recent decades is that physics appears to be fine-tuned for life. This means that for life to be possible, certain numbers in physics had to fall within a certain, very narrow range.

One of the examples of fine-tuning which has most baffled physicists is the strength of dark energy, the force that powers the accelerating expansion of the universe. If that force had been just a little stronger, matter couldn't clump together. No two particles would have ever combined, meaning no stars, planets, or any kind of structural complexity, and therefore no life.

If that force had been significantly weaker, it would not have counteracted gravity. This means the universe would have collapsed back on itself within the first split-second — again meaning no stars or planets or life. To allow for the possibility of life, the strength of dark energy had to be, like Goldilocks's porridge, "just right".

This is just one example, and there are many others.

The most popular explanation for the fine-tuning of physics is that we live in one universe among a multiverse. If enough people buy lottery tickets, it becomes probable that somebody is going to have the right numbers to win. Likewise, if there are enough universes, with different numbers in their physics, it becomes likely that some universe is going to have the right numbers for life.

For a long time, this seemed to me the most plausible explanation of fine-tuning. However, experts in the mathematics of probability have identified the inference from fine-tuning to a multiverse as an instance of fallacious reasoning — something I explore in my new book, Why? The Purpose of the Universe. Specifically, the charge is that multiverse theorists commit what's called the inverse gambler's fallacy.

Suppose Betty is the only person playing in her local bingo hall one night, and in an incredible run of luck, all of her numbers come up in the first minute. Betty thinks to herself: "Wow, there must be lots of people playing bingo in other bingo halls tonight!" Her reasoning is: if there are lots of people playing throughout the country, then it's not so improbable that somebody would get all their numbers called out in the first minute.

But this is an instance of the inverse gambler's fallacy. No matter how many people are or are not playing in other bingo halls throughout the land, probability theory says it is no more likely that Betty herself would have such a run of luck.

It's like playing dice. If we get several sixes in a row, we wrongly assume that we are less likely to get sixes in the next few throws. And if we don't get any sixes for a while, we wrongly assume that there must have been loads of sixes in the past. But in reality, each throw has an exact and equal probability of one in six of getting a specific number.

Multiverse theorists commit the same fallacy. They think: "Wow, how improbable that our universe has the right numbers for life; there must be many other universes out there with the wrong numbers!" But this is just like Betty thinking she can explain her run of luck in terms of other people playing bingo. When this particular universe was created, as in a die throw, it still had a specific, low chance of getting the right numbers.

At this point, multiverse theorists bring in the "anthropic principle" — that because we exist, we could not have observed a universe incompatible with life. But that doesn’t mean such other universes don’t exist.

Suppose there is a deranged sniper hiding in the back of the bingo hall, waiting to shoot Betty the moment a number comes up that's not on her bingo card. Now the situation is analogous to real world fine-tuning: Betty could not have observed anything other than the right numbers to win, just as we couldn't have observed a universe with the wrong numbers for life.

Even so, Betty would be wrong to infer that many people are playing bingo. Likewise, multiverse theorists are wrong to infer from fine-tuning to many universes.

What about the multiverse?

Dice deceive us. (Image credit: Hlorgeksidin/Shutterstock)

Isn't there scientific evidence for a multiverse though? Yes and no. In my book, I explore the connections between the inverse gambler’s fallacy and the scientific case for the multiverse, something which surprisingly hasn’t been done before.

The scientific theory of inflation — the idea that the early universe blew up hugely in size — supports the multiverse. If inflation can happen once, it is likely to be happening in different areas of space — creating universes in their own right. While this may give us tentative evidence for some kind of multiverse, there is no evidence that the different universes have different numbers in their local physics.

There is a deeper reason why the multiverse explanation fails. Probabilistic reasoning is governed by a principle known as the requirement of total evidence, which obliges us to work with the most specific evidence we have available.

In terms of fine-tuning, the most specific evidence that people who believe in the multiverse have is not merely that a universe is fine-tuned, but that this universe is fine-tuned. If we hold that the constants of our universe were shaped by probabilistic processes — as multiverse explanations suggest — then it is incredibly unlikely that this specific universe, as opposed to some other among millions, would be fine-tuned. Once we correctly formulate the evidence, the theory fails to account for it.

The conventional scientific wisdom is that these numbers have remained fixed from the Big Bang onwards. If this is correct, then we face a choice. Either it's an incredible fluke that our universe happened to have the right numbers. Or the numbers are as they are because nature is somehow driven or directed to develop complexity and life by some invisible, inbuilt principle. In my opinion, the first option is too improbable to take seriously. My book presents a theory of the second option — cosmic purpose — and discusses its implications for human meaning and purpose.

This is not how we expected science to turn out. It's a bit like in the 16th century when we first started to get evidence that we weren't in the centre of the universe. Many found it hard to accept that the picture of reality they’d got used to no longer explained the data.

I believe we're in the same situation now with fine-tuning. We may one day be surprised that we ignored for so long what was lying in plain sight — that the universe favours the existence of life.

This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Durham University

Philip Goff is a British philosopher who studies consciousness and how it relates to our theory of reality. He studies the difficulties associated with both materialism (consciousness can be explained in terms of physical processes in the brain) and dualism (consciousness is separate from the body and brain). He is the author of "Why? The Purpose of the Universe" (Oxford University Press, 2023).

  • AdamD
    But isn't the point of the multiverse theory that there are infinite universes, and so if we make the assumption the range of possible fine-tuning includes the numbers that we see in our universe then probability says there has to be a universe with our numbers (because the number are infinite and so every probability within the limits will be satisfied).

    So if that's the case, then we might as well assume we are in the 'lucky' universe.

    I don't see any evidence for a multiverse, but equally I don't see how you can apply the gamblers fallacy to negate it as a possibility if the theory proposes an infinite number of universes?
  • jimb
    <what if> each universe is a life form and it's physical laws and growth patterns are encoded (like DNA)? this would negate many "luck" factors/variables.

    or worse (because it makes me feel small), a single cell in a complex life form?
  • Don Bronkema
    admin said:
    Our universe seems to be perfectly suited for life. But anyone who claims that's evidence of a multiverse is falling prey to a logical fallacy.

    Many physicists think we live in a multiverse. But they're getting a simple math rule wrong: Read
    Universe & consciousness are retroferential artifacts of neural circuitry. Some parts of Ontos become self-aware, but that means nothing ontologically, nicht wahr? Messor Gravis venibit.
  • digitalphysics
    We all have to live our lives (in all variants), not in parallel universes (Multiverse), but sequentially (Multichronos).
    The googol of every life.
    * * *
    Googol is a number represented in the decimal number system by one followed by 100 zeros.

    Why is mathematics, as E. Wigner noted, so effective in solving physical problems? And why is the world known at all? The answer lies in the complementarity of the observer to the world. We live in a subject-object "correlation matrix", where I - the subject is a correlate. In modern science, there is no understanding of this correlativity, and therefore the fact that the laws of nature work extremely smoothly, to the details of "thought out" mechanisms, is perceived as a miracle.
    * * *
    Our approach to justifying QM allows us to take a fresh look at Everett's interpretation. Recall that Everett's interpretation suggests that the world exists in the form of a superposition of classical realities. In this case, the observer always finds himself in one of them. But in what? After all, the alternatives are equal. The answer to this "unsolvable" question turns out to be quite simple, if we take into account the "anatomy" of quantum superposition. As discussed above, each pure quantum state is formed by a set of intentional states, the transitions between which are carried out in latent time. For example, superposition | ψ 〉 =| ψ 1 〉 +| ψ2 〉_means that the trajectory of the system in the intentional space "sweeps" the states | ψ 1 〉 and | ψ 2 〉 in latent time so that the probability of detecting the system in one state or another during the measurement is proportional to the time spent by the system in these states. Let the system visit the state | ψ 1 〉 , and ξ visited state | ψ 2 〉 . Then the probabilities will be equal to P 1 = ξ 1and P 2 = ξ 2 . They can be found as: P 1 =| ψ 1 | 2 and P 2 =| ψ 2 | 2 . It is important to understand that from the point of view of a possibly non-existent external observer, the components of the superposition are visited sequentially, while from the point of view of an internal observer, they are visited simultaneously.

    Internal observer's physics
    A. Kaminsky

    What physical laws can the subject of the finite world discover by observing it from within? It is shown that the world for such a subject will necessarily be quantum, it will necessarily be relativistic, and it will necessarily be irreversible.
    Google translated to English:
  • Van Kruzen
    If Betty's Bingo numbers were not called in the first minute, she would still be there to observe it. So it is extraordinary if Betty observes all the right numbers in the first minute.

    If our corner of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to observe it. The anthropic effect is not the inverse gambler's fallacy. This article uses a bad analogy to accuse others of fallacious reasoning.
  • PodCastAllLangs
    If any other universe exists "outside" of our own, we first have to define where the boundaries of our own are.
    I have a very different "multiverse" concept that is not spatially distinct but temporally distinct from us. Every point in the (our spatial) universe exists on its own time "stalk" at the tip of its own time cone with a slope that is defined by what we generally refer to as the "speed of light", but it is actually the speed of passage of time*. Everything inside that cone exists (inasmuch as "existence" has any meaning at all); everything outside it simply doesn't – in the universe of that one point.
    *We know that time "stops" at the speed of light. This means that the light from a distant nebula 10bn "light years" away both left that nebula and arrived at our eyes at the same instant within the realm of our universe. Whether or not, or by how much, time has advanced in that nebula is irrelevant to the degree that it is simply non-existent in our universe.
    Points that are close enough together have relatively broad, intersecting time cones, allowing them to share their universes within that shared space/time, making it seem to us that there is only one "Time" scale. But in reality, even your thumb and your eye exist in different, but overlapping, universes.