CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesSpace Science and Extraterrestrial LifeAdvanced Mathematical Theories and Applications

Making predictions in a multiverse: conundrums, dangers, coincidences

Aguirre, Anthony·2007·Universe or Multiverse?
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781107050990.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction The standard models of particle physics and cosmology are both rife with numerical parameters that must have values fixed by hand to explain the observed world. The world would be a radically different place if some of these constants took a different value. In particular, it has been argued that if any one of six (or perhaps a few more) numbers did not have rather particular values, then life as we know it would not be possible [1]; atoms would not exist, or no gravitationally bound structures would form in the Universe, or some other calamity would occur that would appear to make the alternative universe a very dull and lifeless place. How, then, did we get so lucky as to be here? This question is an interesting one because all of the possible answers to it that I have encountered or devised entail very interesting conclusions. An essentially exhaustive list of such answers follows. (i) We just got very lucky. All of the numbers could have been very different, in which case the Universe would have been barren, but they just happened by pure chance to take values in the tiny part of parameter space that would allow life. We owe our existence to one very, very, very lucky roll of the dice. (ii) We were not particularly lucky. Almost any set of parameters would have been fine, because life would find a way to arise in nearly any type of universe. […]

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781107050990.023

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 'principle of living dangerously' states that if the prior probability for a parameter is a rapidly increasing (or decreasing) function, then we expect the observed value of the parameter to lie near the edge of the anthropically allowed range.

    “It is called the 'principle of living dangerously': if the prior probability for a parameter is a rapidly increasing (or decreasing) function, then we expect the observed value of the parameter to lie near the edge of the anthropically allowed range.”

    From The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life (2012) · cites this paper as Aguirre (2007)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aguirre, A.
Affiliations
University of California System (US)
Corresponding author
Aguirre, Anthony
ORCID
Aguirre, Anthony
Venue
Universe or Multiverse?
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2007-06-21
Pages
367-386
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781107050990.023
OpenAlex
W3048659278
Cited by
27
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.71
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2571 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
Keywords
anthropic principle, multiverse, fine-tuning, fundamental physical constants, parameter space, life-permitting universe, coincidence problem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review