PROBABILISTIC ARGUMENTS FOR MULTIPLE UNIVERSES
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: In this paper, we discuss three probabilistic arguments for the existence of multiple universes. First, we provide an analysis of total evidence and use that analysis to defend Roger White's “this universe” objection to a standard fine‐tuning argument for multiple universes. Second, we explain why Rodney Holder's recent cosmological argument for multiple universes is unconvincing. Third, we develop a “Cartesian argument” for multiple universes. While this argument is not open to the objections previously noted, we show that, given certain highly plausible assumptions about evidence and epistemic probability, the proposition which it treats as evidence cannot coherently be regarded as evidence for anything. This raises the question of whether to reject the assumptions or accept that such a proposition cannot be evidence.
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?
A careful analysis of TER reveals putative counterexamples to TER not to be genuine counterexamples.
“In my view, a careful analysis of TER reveals these not to be genuine counterexamples (Draper, 2020; Draper et al., 2007).”
From Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? (2024) · cites this paper as Draper et al., 2007
Cites
Fine‐Tuning, Multiple Universes and Theism
Holder, R. D. (2002) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/1468-0068.00372 · Cited by 31 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Another critic of TUO is Rodney Holder (2002).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multiple Universes and Self-Locating Evidence
Isaacs, Y., Hawthorne, J., & Sanford Russell, J. (2022) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.1215/00318108-9743809 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
In Defense of the Requirement of Total Evidence
Draper, P. (2020) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/706084 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationIs the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse?
Goff, P. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04621-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“In my view, a careful analysis of TER reveals these not to be genuine counterexamples (Draper, 2020; Draper et al., 2007).”
BackgroundThe costs of rejecting quantum immortality
O’Brien, M. W. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05304-z
- Authors
- DRAPER, K., DRAPER, P., & PUST, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08-20
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 288-307
- ISSN
- 0031-5621 (ISSN-L)
- 0279-0750
- 1468-0114
- OpenAlex
- W2094138420
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Locations
- Pacific philosophical quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Keywords
- multiverse, fine-tuning argument, total evidence, cosmological argument, epistemic probability, evidence, 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
