Fine‐Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the “This Universe” Objection
Abstract
Abstract: When it is suggested that the fine‐tuning of the universe for life provides evidence for a cosmic designer, the multiple‐universe hypothesis is often presented as an alternative. Some philosophers object that the multiple‐universe hypothesis fails to explain why this universe is fine‐tuned for life. We suggest the “This Universe” objection is no better than the “This Planet” objection. We also fault proponents of the “This Universe” objection for presupposing that we could not have existed in any other universe and that the values of the free parameters of the Universe could have been different. Lastly, we reflect on why fine‐tuning for life needs explaining
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Manson and Thrush are not arguing that the Contingency Assumption is false; their point is that there is a gap in the argument of Hacking and White.
“Crucially, however, Manson and Thrush are not arguing that the Contingency Assumption is false. Their point is rather that there is a gap in the argument of Hacking and White.”
From Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? (2024) · cites this paper as Manson & Thrush, 2003
The most plausible view about the essence of bubbles in eternal inflation is that bubbles can be distinguished in terms of their positions in hyperspace.
“This does indeed seem to be the most plausible view about the essence of bubbles in eternal inflation.”
From Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? (2024) · cites this paper as Manson & Thrush, 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse?
Goff, P. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04621-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
The costs of rejecting quantum immortality
O’Brien, M. W. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05304-z
- Authors
- Manson, N. A., & Thrush, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- ORCID
- Manson, Neil A.
- Venue
- Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-02-18
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-83
- ISSN
- 0031-5621 (ISSN-L)
- 0279-0750
- 1468-0114
- OpenAlex
- W2050726947
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pacific philosophical quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Keywords
- fine-tuning, multiverse, multiverse hypothesis, teleology, philosophy of cosmology
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
