Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:10:50.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2021

Simon Friederich
Simon Friederich
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Multiverse Theories
A Philosophical Perspective
 , pp. 185 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, F. C. Stars in other universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08:10, 2008.Google Scholar
Adams, F. C. The degree of fine-tuning in our universe – and others. Physics Reports, 807:1–111, 2019.Google Scholar
Adams, F. C., and Grohs, E. On the habitability of universes without stable deuterium. Astroparticle Physics, 91:90–104, 2017.Google Scholar
Adlam, E. The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47:21–32, 2014.Google Scholar
Aguirre, A., and Johnson, M. C. A status report on the observability of cosmic bubble collisions. Reports on Progress in Physics, 74:074901, 2011.Google Scholar
Aguirre, A., and Tegmark, M. Multiple universes, cosmic coincidences and other dark matters. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005:003, 2005.Google Scholar
Albert, D., and Loewer, B. Interpreting the many worlds interpretation. Synthese, 77:195–213, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, A., and Sorbo, L. Can the universe afford inflation? Physical Review D, 70:063528, 2004.Google Scholar
Amrhein, V. Greenland, S., and McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567:305–307, 2019.Google Scholar
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., and Dvali, G. The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter. Physics Letters B, 429:263–272, 1998.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, F., and Dorr, C. Self-locating priors and cosmological measures. In Chamcham, K., Barrow, J., Saunders, S., and Silk, J., editors, The Philosophy of Cosmology, pages 396–428. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Azhar, F. Prediction and typicality in multiverse cosmology. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31:035005, 2014.Google Scholar
Baker, D. J. Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38:153–169, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, R., and Guidice, G. F. Upper bounds on suupersymmetric particle masses. Nuclear Physics B, 306:63–76, 1988.Google Scholar
Barnes, L. A. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29:529–564, 2012.Google Scholar
Barnes, L. A. Fine-tuning in the context of Bayesian theory testing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8:253–269, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, L. A., Elahi, P. J., Salcido, J. et al. Galaxy formation efficiency and the multiverse explanation of the cosmological constant with EAGLE simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477:3727–3743, 2018.Google Scholar
Barr, S. M., and Khan, A. Anthropic Tuning of the weak scale and of mu/md in two-Higgs-doublet models. Physical Review D, 76:045002, 2007.Google Scholar
Barrow, J. D., and Tipler, F. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Baun, L., and Frampton, P. H. Turnaround in cyclic cosmology. Physical Review Letters, 98:071301, 2007.Google Scholar
Behe, M. J. Darwin’s, Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Bekenstein, J. D. Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm. Physical Review D, 70:083509, 2004.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1:195–200, 1964.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38:447–452, 1966.Google Scholar
Bénétreau-Dupin, Y. Blurring out cosmic puzzles. Philosophy of Science, 82:879–891, 2015a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénétreau-Dupin, Y. The Bayesian who knew too much. Synthese, 192:1527–1542, 2015b.Google Scholar
Bertone, G., and Tait, T. M. P. A new era in the search for dark matter. Nature, 562:51–56, 2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertone, G., Hooper, D., and Silk, J. Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints. Physics Reports, 405:279–390, 2005.Google Scholar
Bertrand, J. L. F. Calcul des probabilités. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1889.Google Scholar
Boddy, K. K., Carroll, S. M., and Pollack, J. Why Boltzmann brains do not fluctuate into existence from the de Sitter vacuum. In Chamcham, K., Barrow, J., Saunders, S., and Silk, J., editors, The Philosophy of Cosmology, pages 228–240. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85:166–193, 1952.Google Scholar
Boltzmann, L. On certain questions of the theory of gases. Nature, 51:413–415, 1895.Google Scholar
Borrelli, A., and Castellani, E. The practice of naturalness: A historical-philosophical perspective. Foundations of Physics, 49:860–878, 2019.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. The doomsday argument, Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe. Synthese, 127:359–387, 2001.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. Sleeping Beauty and self-location: A hybrid model. Synthese, 157:59–78, 2007.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. Where are they? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing. MIT Technology Review, May/June:72–77, 2008.Google Scholar
Bousso, R. Holographic properties in eternal inflation. Physical Review Letters, 97:191302, 2006.Google Scholar
Bousso, R. Complementarity in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 79:123524, 2009.Google Scholar
Bousso, R., Harnik, R., Kribs, G. D., and Perez, G. Predicting the cosmological constant from the causal entropic principle. Physical Review D, 76:043513, 2007.Google Scholar
Bousso, R., Freivogel, B., and Yang, I. Boltzmann babies in the proper time measure. Physical Review D, 77:103514, 2008.Google Scholar
Bousso, R., Freivogel, B., and Yang, I. Properties of the scale factor measure. Physical Review D, 79:063513, 2009.Google Scholar
Bousso, R., and Polchinski, J. Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2000:06, 2000.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Multiple, Universes and Observation Selection Effects. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46:61–72, 2009.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Self-location is no problem for conditionalization. Synthese, 182:393–411, 2011.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Four problems about self-locating belief. Philosophical Review, 121:149–177, 2012.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Everettian confirmation and Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Wilson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:683–693, 2015.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J., and Leitgeb, H. When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis, 66:119–127, 2006.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. Putting a value on beauty. In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J., editors, Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 3, pages 3–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Buckareff, A., and Nagasawa, Y., editors. Alternative Concepts of God: Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Carlson, E., and Olsson, E. J. Is our existence in need of further explanation? Inquiry, 41:255–275, 1998.Google Scholar
Carr, B. J., and Rees, M. J. The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature, 278:605–612, 1979.Google Scholar
Carretero-Sahuquillo, M. A. The charm quark as a naturalness success. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 58:51–61, 2019.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. M. From, Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. London: Plume, 2010.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. M. Why Boltzmann brains are bad. In S. Dasgupta and B. Weslake, editors, Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science. Routledge, 2020.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. M. Beyond falsifiability: Normal science in a multiverse. R. Dawid, R. Dardashti, and K. Thébault, editors, Why Trust a Theory? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pages 300–314 of the book, 2019.Google Scholar
Carter, B. The anthropic principle and its implications for biological evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A310:347–363, 1983.Google Scholar
Carter, B. J. Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In Longair, M. S., editor, Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Astronomical Data, pages 291–298. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974.Google Scholar
Ćirković, M. M., Sandberg, A., and Bostrom, N. Anthropic shadow: Observation selection effects and human extinction risks. Risk Analysis, 30:1495–1506, 2010.Google Scholar
Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., and Holt, R. A. Proposed experiment to test local hidden variables theories. Physical Review Letters, 23:880–884, 1969.Google Scholar
Colbeck, R., and Renner, R. No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power. Nature Communications, 2:411, 2011.Google Scholar
Collins, R. The teleological argument: An exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos. In Craig, W. L. and Moreland, J. P., editors, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pages 202–281. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M., Garfield, J. L., and Priest, G. Problems with the argument from fine-tuning. Synthese, 145:325–338, 2005.Google Scholar
Conitzer, V. A devastating example for the Halfer Rule. Philosophical Studies, 172:1985–1992, 2015a.Google Scholar
Conitzer, V. A Dutch Book against Sleeping Beauties who are evidential decision theorists. Synthese, 192:2887–2899, 2015b.Google Scholar
Corbelli, E., and Salucci, P. The extended rotation curve and the dark matter halo of M33. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311:441–447, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozic, M. Imaging and Sleeping Beauty: A case for double-halfers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52:137–143, 2011.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe. In Manson, N. A., editor, God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pages 155–177. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. Measure, topology and probabilistic reasoning in cosmology. 2014. latest version available online at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11677/.Google Scholar
Davies, P. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? London: Allen Lane, 2006.Google Scholar
Dawid, R. String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Dawid, R., and Thébault, K. P. Against the empirical viability of the Deutsch-Wallace-Everett approach to quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47:55–61, 2014.Google Scholar
Dawid, R., and Thébault, K. P. Many worlds: Decoherent or incoherent. Synthese, 192:1559–1580, 2015.Google Scholar
Dawid, R. Hartmann, D., and Sprenger, J. The no alternatives argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:213–234, 2015.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.Google Scholar
De Simone, A., Guth, A. H., Salem, M. P., and Vilenkin, A. Predicting the cosmological constant with the scale-factor cutoff measure. Physical Review D, 78:063520, 2008.Google Scholar
Dembski, W. A. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 455:3129–3137, 1999.Google Scholar
Dicke, R. H. Dirac’s, Cosmology and Mach’s Principle. Nature, 192:440–441, 1961.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. Doomsday–Or: The dangers of statistics. The Philosophical Quarterly, 42:778–784, 1992.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. Reasoning about the future: Doom and beauty. Synthese, 156:427–439, 2007.Google Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. A New Basis for Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 165:199–208, 1938.Google Scholar
Dizadji-Bahmani, F. The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics persists. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:257–283, 2015.Google Scholar
Donoghue, J. F. The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms. In Carr, Bernard, editor, Universe of Multiverse?, pages 231–246. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Dorr, C. Sleeping beauty: In defence of Elga. Analysis, 62:292–296, 2002.Google Scholar
Draper, K., and Pust, J. Probabilistic arguments for multiple universes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88:288–307, 2007.Google Scholar
Draper, K., and Pust, J. Diachronic dutch books and Sleeping Beauty. Synthese, 164:281–287, 2008.Google Scholar
Draper, P., Meade, P., Reece, M., and Shih, D. Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs boson for the MSSM and low-scale supersymmetry breaking. Physical Review D, 85:095007, 2012.Google Scholar
Earman, J. The SAP also rises: A critical examination of the anthropic principle. Philosophical Quarterly, 24:307–317, 1987.Google Scholar
Earman, J., and Mosterín, J. A critical look at inflationary cosmology. Philosophy of Science, 66:1–49, 1999.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, W. Probability theory and the Doomsday argument. Mind, 102:483–488, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, A. S. The end of the world: From the standpoint of mathematical physics. Nature, 127:447–453, 1931. reprinted in The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking, ed. by D. R. Danielson, Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2000, p. 406.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. Autobiographical notes. In Schilpp, P. A., editor, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, pages 1–94. Peru, IL: Open Court, 1949.Google Scholar
Elga, A. Self-locating belief and the sleeping beauty problem. Analysis, 60:143–147, 2000.Google Scholar
Elga, A. Defeating Dr. Evil with self-locating belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69:383–396, 2004.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R., and Stoeger, W. R. A note on infinities in eternal inflation. General Relativity and Gravitation, 41:1475–1484, 2009.Google Scholar
Epstein, P. F. The fine-tuning argument and the requirement of total evidence. Philosophy of Science, 84:639–658, 2017.Google Scholar
Everett, H. ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29:454–462, 1957.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. Occam’s razor and possible worlds. The Monist, 65:456–464, 1982.Google Scholar
Forrest, P., and Armstrong, D. M. An argument against David Lewis’ theory of possible worlds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62:164–168, 1984.Google Scholar
Friederich, S. Motivating Wittgenstein’s perspective on mathematical sentences as norms. Philosophia Mathematica, 19:1–19, 2011.Google Scholar
Friederich, S. Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.Google Scholar
Friederich, S., and Evans, P. W. Retrocausality in quantum mechanics. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2019 edition, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/.Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. A., and Schack, R. QBism and the Greeks: Why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality. Physica Scripta, 90:015104, 2015.Google Scholar
Gaillard, M. K., and Lee, B. W. Rare decay modes of the K mesons in gauge theories. Physical Review D, 10:897, 1974.Google Scholar
Garber, D. Old evidence and logical omniscience in bayesian confimation theory. In Earman, J., editor, Testing Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Garriga, J. and Vilenkin, A. Prediction and explanation in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 77:043526, 2008.Google Scholar
Garriga, J., Schwartz-Perlov, D., Vilenkin, A., and Winitzki, S. Probabilities in the inflationary multiverse. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2006:017, 2006.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34:470, 1986.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. W., Hawking, S. W., and Stewart, J. M. A natural measure on the set of all universes. Nuclear Physics B, 281:736–751, 1987.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. W., and Turok, N. Measure problem in cosmology. Physical Review D, 77:063516, 2008.Google Scholar
Giudice, G. The dawn of the post-naturalness era. CERN reports, CERN-TH-2017-205, 2017. arXiv:1710.07663v1.Google Scholar
Glashow, S.L., Iliopoulos, J., and Maiani, L. Weak interactions with lepton-hadron symmetry. Physical Review D, 2:1285, 1970.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S., Struyve, W., and Tumulka, R. The Bohmian approach to the problem of cosmological quantum fluctuations. In A. Ijjas and B. Loewer, editors, Guide to the Philosophy of Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2017. Preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01017.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. Mind and supermind. Natural History, 92:34–38, 1983.Google Scholar
Greaves, H., and Myrvold, W. Everett and evidence. In Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D., editors, Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, pages 264–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A., and Zeilinger, A. Going beyond Bell’s theorem. In Kafatos, M., editor, Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, pages 69–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989.Google Scholar
Greene, B. The Hidden Reality. New York: Vintage, 2011.Google Scholar
Grinbaum, A. Which fine-tuning arguments are fine? Foundations of Physics, 42:615–631, 2012.Google Scholar
Grohs, E., Howe, A. R., and Adams, F. C. Universes without the weak force: Astrophysical processes with stable neutrons. Physical Review D, 97:043003, 2018.Google Scholar
Guth, A., et al. A cosmic controversy. Scientific American, May 10, 2017. available online at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/, accessed 23 August 2019.Google Scholar
Guth, A. H. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems. Physical Review D, 23:347–356, 1981.Google Scholar
Guth, A. H. Inflation and eternal inflation. Physics Reports, 333:555–574, 2000.Google Scholar
Guth, A. H. Eternal inflation and its implications. Journal of Physics A, 40:6811, 2007.Google Scholar
Hacking, I . The inverse gambler’s fallacy: The argument from design; The anthropic principle applied to Wheeler Universes. Mind, 96:331–340, 1987.Google Scholar
Hall, L. J., Pinner, D., and Ruderman, J. T. The weak scale from BBN. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014:134, 2014.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. Sleeping Beauty reconsidered: Conditioning and reflection in asynchronoûs systems. In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J., editors, Oxford Studies in Epistemology, pages 111–142. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.Google Scholar
Harnik, R., Kribs, G. D., and Perez, G. A universe without weak interactions. Physical Review D, 2006:035006, 2006.Google Scholar
Hartle, J. B., and Srednicki, M. Are we typical? Physical Review D, 75:123523, 2007.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S., and Fitelson, B. A new Garber-style solution to the problem of old evidence. Philosophy of Science, 82:712–717, 2015.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. W., and Page, D. N. How probable is inflation? Nuclear Physics B, 298:789–809, 1988.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J., and Isaacs, Y. Fine-tuning fine-tuning. In Benton, M. A., Hawthorne, J., and Rabinowitz, D., editors, Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, pages 136–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Healey, R. A. The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Hill, C. T., and Simmons, E. H. Strong dynamics and electroweak symmetry breaking. Physics Reports, 381:235–402, 2003.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. Beauty and the bets. Synthese, 139:405–420, 2004.Google Scholar
Hogan, C. J. Why the universe is just so. Reviews of Modern Physics, 72:1149–1161, 2000.Google Scholar
Hogan, C. J. Quarks, electrons, and atoms in closely related universes. In Carr, Bernard, editor, Universe of Multiverse?, pages 221–230. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Holder, R. D. Fine-tuning, multiple universes and theism. Noûs, 36:295–312, 2002.Google Scholar
Hollands, S., and Wald, R. M. Essay: An alternative to inflation. General Relativity and Gravitation, 34:2043–2055, 2002.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. Sleeping Beauty awakened: New odds at the dawn of the new day. Analysis, 64:10–21, 2004.Google Scholar
Hossenfelder, S. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books, 2014.Google Scholar
Howson, C. The “old evidence” problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42: 547–555, 1991.Google Scholar
Hoyle, F., Dunbar, D. N. F., Wenzel, W. A., and Whaling, W. A state in C12 predicted from astrophysical evidence. Physical Review, 92:1095, 1953.Google Scholar
Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J., and Loeb, A. Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013. Physics Letters B, 723:547–555, 2013.Google Scholar
Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J., and Loeb, A. Cosmic inflation theory faces challenges. Scientific American, February 1, 2017. Available online at www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-theory-faces-challenges/, accessed 23 August 2019.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. Sleeping Beauty: A wake-up call. Philosophia Mathematica, 13:194–201, 2005.Google Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning, many worlds, and the ‘inverse gambler’s fallacy’. Noûs, 39:337–347, 2005.Google Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning is not surprising. Analysis, 66:269–275, 2006.Google Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning and old evidence. Noûs, 41:550–558, 2007.Google Scholar
Kachru, S., Kallosh, R., Linde, A., and Trivedi, S. P. De Sitter vacua in string theory. Physical Review D, 68:046005, 2003.Google Scholar
Kent, A. One world versus many: The inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation. In Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D., editors, Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, pages 307–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan, 1921.Google Scholar
Kierland, B., and Monton, B. Minimizing inaccuracy for self-locating beliefs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70:384–395, 2005.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. Risk, , Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 1921.Google Scholar
Kochen, S., and Specker, E. P. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17:59–87, 1967.Google Scholar
Koperski, J. Should we care about fine-tuning? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:303–319, 2005.Google Scholar
Kotzen, M. Selection biases in likelihood arguments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63:825–839, 2012.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. Naming and Necessity. In D. Davidson and G. Harman, editors, Semantics of Natural Language, pages 253–355, 763–769. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972. repr. 1980 by Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kroupa, P., Pawlowski, M., and Milgrom, M. The failures of the Standard Model of cosmology require a new paradigm. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 21: 1230003, 2012.Google Scholar
Landsman, K. The fine-tuning argument: Exploring the improbability of our own existence. In Landsman, K. and van Wolde, E., editors, The Challenge of Chance, pages 111–128. Heidelberg: Springer, 2016.Google Scholar
Leegwater, G. An impossibility theorem for parameter independent hidden variable theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 54:18–34, 2016.Google Scholar
Lehners, J.-L., and Steinhard, P. J. Planck 2013 results support the cyclic universe. Physical Review D, 87:123533, 2013.Google Scholar
Lerche, W., Lüst, D., and Schellekens, A. N. Chiral four-dimensional heterotic strings from selfdual lattices. Nuclear Physics B, 287:477, 1987.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. Anthropic explanations in cosmology. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pages 87–95, 1986.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. No inverse gambler’s fallacy in cosmology. Mind, 97:269–272, 1988.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. Universes. London: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. Causal decision theory. Australasion Journal of Philosophy, 59:5–30, 1981.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. A subjectivists’s guide to objective chance. In Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, pages 83–132. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986a. originally published in R. C. Jeffrey, editor, Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Vol. II, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford, New York: Blackwell, 1986b.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. Sleeping beauty: Reply to Elga. Analysis, 61:171–176, 2001.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. J., and Barnes, L. A. Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. J. Quantum Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 67:59–65, 2007.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. J. A note on the doomsday argument. Analysis, 70:27–30, 2010.Google Scholar
Linde, A. A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems. Physics Letters B, 108:389–393, 1982.Google Scholar
Linde, A. Sinks in the landscape, Boltzmann brains and the cosmological constant. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2007:002, 2007.Google Scholar
Linde, A. Inflationary cosmolgoy after Planck 2013. 2014. Available online at arXiv:1402.0526, retrieved 3 January 2019.Google Scholar
Linde, A., Linde, D., and Mezhlumian, A. Nonperturbative amplifications of inhomogeneities in a self-reproducing universe. Physical Review D, 54:2504, 1995.Google Scholar
Loeb, A., Batista, R. A., and Sloan, D. Relative likelihood for life as a function of cosmic time. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08:40, 2016.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J., and Mullan, D. J. Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle. Physical Review D, 80:043507, 2009.Google Scholar
Manson, N. A. The fine-tuning argument. Philosophy Compass, 492:29, 2009.Google Scholar
Manson, N. A. How not to be generous to fine-tuning sceptics. Religious Studies, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765947S0034412518000586.Google Scholar
Manson, N. A., and Thrush, M. J. Fine-tuning, multiple universes, and the “This Universe” Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84:67–83, 2003.Google Scholar
Martel, H., Shapiro, P. R., and Weinberg, S. Likely values of the cosmological constant. The Astrophysical Journal, 492:29, 1998.Google Scholar
Martin, J. Cosmic inflation: Trick or treat? In Fine-tuning in the Physical Universe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, in press arXiv:1902.02586v1.Google Scholar
McCoy, C. D. Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51:23–36, 2015.Google Scholar
McCoy, C. D. The implementation, interpretation, and justification of likelihoods in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62:19–35, 2018.Google Scholar
McGrath, P. J. The inverse gambler’s Fallacy and cosmology: A reply to hacking. Mind, 97:331–340, 1988.Google Scholar
McGrew, T., McGrew, L., and Vestrup, E. Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: A sceptical view. Mind, 110:1027–1038, 2001.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K. Arguing against fundamentality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42:244–255, 2011.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. Indifference principle and anthropic principle in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24:359–389, 1993.Google Scholar
McQueen, K. J., and Vaidman, L. In defence of the self-location uncertainty account of probability in the many-worlds interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 66:14–23, 2019.Google Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. Sleeping, Beauty and the dynamics of de se belief. Philosophical Studies, 138:245–2699, 2008.Google Scholar
Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophysical Journal, 270:365–370, 1983.Google Scholar
Miller, K. R., Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999.Google Scholar
Monton, B. God, fine-tuning, and the problem of old evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57:404–425, 2006.Google Scholar
Mukhanov, V. Inflation without selfreproduction. Fortschritte der Physik, 63:36–41, 2015.Google Scholar
Narveson, J. God by design? In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pages 88–105. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
Neal, R. M. Puzzles of anthropic reasoning resolved using full non-indexical conditioning. 2006. arXiv:math/0608592v1.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. Ignorance and indifference. Philosophy of Science, 75:45–68, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. Cosmic confusion: Not supporting versus supporting not. Philosophy of Science, 77:501–523, 2010.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. Eternal inflation: When probabilities fail. Synthese, in press https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229–018-1734-7.Google Scholar
Oberhummer, H., Csótó, A., and Schlattl, H. Stellar production rates of carbon and its abundance in the universe. Science, 289:88–90, 2000.Google Scholar
Olum, K. The Doomsday Argument and the number of possible observers. The Philosophical Quarterly, 52:164–184, 2002.Google Scholar
Page, D. N. Is our universe likely to decay within 20 billion years? Physical Review D, 78:063535, 2008.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. Why Anything? Why This?. London Review of Books, January 22:24–27, 1998.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Vintage, 2004.Google Scholar
Phillips, D., and Albrecht, A. Effects of inhomogeneity on the causal entropic prediction of Λ. Physical Review D, 84:123530, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisaturo, R. Past longevity as evidence for the future. Philosophy of Science, 76:73–100, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planck Collaboration. Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594:A1, 2016.Google Scholar
Price, H. Against causal decision theory. Synthese, 67:195–212, 1986.Google Scholar
Randall, L., and Sundrum, R. Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. Physical Review Letters, 83:3370, 1999.Google Scholar
Rees, M. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books, 2000.Google Scholar
Rees, M. Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning. New York: Basic Books, 2003.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. T. Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye. Philosophical Studies, 160:287–303, 2012.Google Scholar
Rosaler, J., and Harlander, R. Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 66:118–134, 2019.Google Scholar
Ross, J. Sleeping Beauty, countable additivity, and rational dilemmas. Philosophical Review, 119:411–447, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rota, M. Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence, and the Abundant Life. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Salem, M. P. Bubble collisions and measures of the multiverse. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012(01):021, 2012.Google Scholar
Sandberg, A., Drexler, E., and Ord, T. Dissolving the Fermi paradox. 2018. arXiv:1806 .02404.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. Derivation of the Born rule from operational assumptions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 460:1771–1788, 2004.Google Scholar
Schellekens, A. N. Life at the interface of particle physics and string theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85:1491, 2013.Google Scholar
Schulz, M. The dynamics of indexical belief. Erkenntnis, 72:337–351, 2010.Google Scholar
Schwarz, W. Belief update across fission. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66: 659–682, 2015.Google Scholar
Sebens, C. T., and Carroll, S. M. Self-locating uncertainty and the origin of probability in Everettian quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2018 (69):25–74, 2018.Google Scholar
Shackel, N. Bertrand’s paradox and the principle of indifference. Philosophy of Science, 74:150–175, 2007.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, J. S., and Wald, R. M. Measure and probability in cosmology. Physical Review D, 86:023521, 2012.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22:1359–1366, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smart, J. J. C. Our, Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar
Smeenk, C. Predictability crisis in early universe cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 46:122–133, 2014.Google Scholar
Smolin, L. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.Google Scholar
Smolin, L. Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle. In Carr, B., editor, Universe of Multiverse, pages 323–366. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Sober, E. The design argument. In Manson, N. A., editor, God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pages 27–54. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
Sober, E. Absence of evidence and evidence of absence: Evidential transitivity in connection with fossils, fishing, fine-tuning and firing squads. Philosophical Studies, 143:63–90, 2009.Google Scholar
Spekkens, R. W Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A, 71:052108, 2005.Google Scholar
Sprenger, J. A novel solution to the problem of old evidence. Philosophy of Science, pages 383–401, 2015.Google Scholar
Srednicki, M., and Hartle, J.B. Science in a very large universe. Physical Review D, 81:123524, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starkman, G. D., and Trotta, R. Why anthropic reasoning cannot predict Λ. Physical Review Letters, 97:201301, 2006.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, P. J. The inflation debate. Scientific American, April:36–43, 2011.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, P. J., and Turok, N. Cosmic evolution in a cyclic universe. Physical Review D, 65:126003, 2001.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, P. J. and Turok, N. Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. New York: Doubleday, 2008.Google Scholar
Stenger, V. J. The, Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us. New York: Prometheus Books, 2011.Google Scholar
Susskind, L. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York: Back Bay Books, 2005.Google Scholar
Swimburne, R. The argument to God from fine-tuning reassessed. In Manson, N. A., editor, God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pages 105–123. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
Swimburne, R. The Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swimburne, R. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2016.Google Scholar
‘t Hooft, G. Naturalness, chiral symmetry and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. In G.’t Hooft , editor, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, pages 135–157. New York: Plenum Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M. Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory? Annals of Physics, 270:1–51, 1998.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M. What does inflation really predict? Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005:001, 2005.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. New York: Knopf, 2014.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M. Aguirre, A. Rees, M. J., and Wilczek, F. Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters. Physical Review D, 73:023505, 2006.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M., and Rees, M. J. Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−5? The Astrophysical Journal, 499:526–532, 1998.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. Modal realism and inductive scepticism. Noûs, 27:331–354, 1993.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. The relevance of self-locating beliefs. Philosophical Review, 117:555–605, 2008.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. An embarrassment for double-halfers. Thought, 1:146–151, 2012.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. Quitting Certainties: A Bayesian Framework Modelling Degrees of Belief. Oxford: Clarendon, revised edition, 2013a.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. Ten reasons to care about the Sleeping Beauty problem. Philosophy Compass, 8:1003–1017, 2013b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, R. C. Relativity, , Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1934. reissued 1987 by Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Torres, P. Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks. Durham, NC: Pitchstone, 2017.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-Ph. The fundamental constants and their variation: Observational and theoretical status. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75:403, 2003.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-Ph. Varying constants, gravitation and cosmology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 14:2, 2011.Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. On schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12:245–261, 1998.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, P. Metaphysics. Colorado: Westview Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Van Schaik, C., and Michel, K. The Good Book of Human Nature: An Evolutionary Reading of the Bible. New York: Basic Books, 2016.Google Scholar
Venn, J. The Logic of Chance. New York: Chelsea, 1866.Google Scholar
Vilenkin, A. Predictions from quantum cosmology. Physical Review Letters, 74:846–849, 1995.Google Scholar
Vilenkin, A. A measure of the multiverse. Journal of Physics A, 40:6777–6785, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. Quantum probability from subjective likelihood: Improving on Deutsch’s proof of the probability rule. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38:311–332, 2007.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P., and Brownlee, D. E. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus, 2000.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. Should we respond to evil with indifference? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70:613–635, 2005.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59:2607, 1987.Google Scholar
Weinstein, S. Anthropic reasoning and typicality in multiverse cosmology and string theory. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23:4231, 2006.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. Firing squads and fine-tuning: Sober on the design argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:809–821, 2005.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. A note on design: What’s fine-tuning go to do with it? Analysis, 70:431–438, 2010.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. The argument from divine indifference. Analysis, 72:707–715, 2012.Google Scholar
Wells, J. D. The utility of Naturalness, and how its application to Quantum Electrodynamics envisages the Standard Model and Higgs boson. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 49:102–108, 2015.Google Scholar
Wetterich, C. Fine-tuning problem and the renormalization group. Physics Letters B, 140:215–222, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterich, C. Where to look for solving the gauge hierarchy problem? Physics Letters B, 718:573–576, 2012.Google Scholar
White, R. Fine-tuning and multiple universes. Noûs, 34:260–267, 2000.Google Scholar
White, R. What’s fine-tuning got to do with it: A reply to Weisberg. Analysis, 71:676–679, 2011.Google Scholar
Williams, P. Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125GeV Higgs. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51:82–96, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. Everettian confirmation and Sleeping Beauty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65:573–598, 2014.Google Scholar
Woit, P. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. Basic Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Zuboff, A. One self: The logic of experience. Inquiry, 33:39–68, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, W. H. Probabilities from entanglement, Born’s rule pk = |ψk|2 from envariance. Physical Review A, 71:052105, 2005.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Simon Friederich, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Book: Multiverse Theories
  • Online publication: 07 January 2021
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Simon Friederich, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Book: Multiverse Theories
  • Online publication: 07 January 2021
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Simon Friederich, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Book: Multiverse Theories
  • Online publication: 07 January 2021
Available formats
×