Multi Verse Hypothesis

8/2/2019 Multi Verse Hypothesis

1/11

200495930 Main Seminar 2 Phil 705

Does the inference to the multiple universe hypothesis commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy?

It has often been remarked by physicists and chemists that the universe is very

sensitively tuned to allow life to exist. If certain physical and chemical constants

were just a fraction from their observed values, life could never have arisen.There is, for example, an extraordinary series of coincidental physical conditions

which led to the high cosmic abundance of the element carbon, the basis of all

life. [Hoyle, 1983]

How and why there is intelligent life in this universe is aprima facie puzzle. That this universe (or, on

a lesser scale, this world) appears, as observed by Hoyle, to be staggeringly well-adjusted to bear

intelligent life indicates that factors such as the natural laws of the universe must be in the optimum

pattern in order to create and sustain life, and that the amount of energy generated from the Big

Bang was the exact amount needed to create this universe (without this exact amount of energy, the

universe would have either expanded too quickly, causing it to collapse in on itself, or not quickly

enough, meaning that stars and planets would not have been created). If either of these factors had

not occurred exactly as they had, varying by as little as one per cent either way, this universe would

not have harboured any life at all, let alone intelligent life. Scientists argue that even the minutest of

variations in the outcome of the Big Bang would have led to the creation of a very different universe

to the one in which we are living, and point out the extreme improbability that our life fostering

universe could have been created. However, evidently, this universe does exist in a form able tocreate and sustain life, so how did this happen?

It is quite evident that the probability of the Big Bang producing these precise conditions

completely by chance is incredibly low; in fact, some statisticians, as noted by Crabb in Our

Improbable Existence and the Multi-universe Hypothesis, claim that it is as little as

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 [Crabb, 2006], and given this figure, it is perfectly logical to

seek another explanation for our existence aside from the notion that we are here purely by chance

alone. In popular philosophy, there are three common explanations as to how this universe ended

up with the capacity to create and sustain life: firstly, the notion that it is nothing more than pure

luck. It is a brute fact that out of all of the possibilities in existence, it just so happened that this

universe produced the exact combinations that would allow intelligent life to form in it. Secondly is

the design argument, which claims that, because there is evidence of design in the universe, then it

is likely that the universe was designed. Naturally, this leads to the assumption that the designer of

the universe was God. Finally, there is the notion that there are multiple universes. If there were

millions of universes in existence, then it can be argued that it is reasonably likely that at least one of

them will produce the conditions necessary to create and sustain life, as there were many


2/11


opportunities for this to occur. Furthermore, it is this universe which is necessarily the one that was

created with the optimum potential to create and sustain life.

The argument that our universe is merely brute fact is one which is tolerated by thinkers such as

Richard Swinburne and Bertrand Russell, whose case is often defended by the application of

Occams Razor. Also, although it appears superficially to be rather unlikely, one common position

upheld by thinkers is that those who suggest that the creation of this particular universe is highly

unlikely are in fact mistaken. Furthermore, whilst the design argument is harshly criticised, Hacking

claims that it cannot be as easily dismissed as one may think, a notion I shall move on to further in

the essay. However, of the three ideas, the multiple universe hypothesis appears to be the most

logical.

One form of the multiple universe hypothesis was outlined by John Wheeler in 1983, and this is

known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle. Its basic argument is that universes were generated

in a sequence or series, and that each attempt before the creation of this universe failed to create

and sustain life, and when this universe came into existence, no further attempts were necessary

and no more universes were created after the success of this one. Therefore, one can see that

Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle supports the notion that the more attempts there are at

creating a life fostering universe, the more likely it is that one will eventually be created.

Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle can be viewed as follows: universes were perpetually

generated in varying configurations until one was produced which became home to a single sentientbeing. When this occurred, the creation of further universes ceased, as a universe able to create and

sustain life was now in existence. As one can see, that universe is the universe in which we find

ourselves.

According to Ian Hacking, the multiple universe hypothesis is one of the most popular objections to

the design argument. As previously stated, the design argument is the observation that the universe

is finely tuned to the point that it is exactly right to support life, and therefore, must have been

designed in order to do so. This tends to lead to the conclusion that God is the designer. Hacking

claims that the multiple universe hypothesis and Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle (in the

form mentioned above) each commits a fallacy which he calls the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy.

Hackings theory is, as the title suggests, an inversion of a common fallacy known as the Gamblers

Fallacy. The Gamblers Fallacy reads as follows: a gambler has had a series of six consecutive

unsuccessful bets, so he reasons that, on his seventh bet, his luck is due to change, as the more bets

he makes, the more likely it is he will be successful. This line of thought assumes that past events

have an effect on future probability. However, some thinkers claim that this assumption is incorrect,


3/11


as there is no causal relation between such events, so the gamblers first six bets would have no

bearing whatsoever on his seventh bet.

Hacking claims that there is an inverse of this fallacy, which is often committed by advocates of the

multiple universe hypothesis. The Inverse Gamblers Fallacy comes in two forms, both of which start

from the notion that, the more opportunities that occur, the more likely it is that an improbable

outcome will eventually occur. For example, if a gambler is playing poker and is dealt a Royal Flush,

one would assume that he had been playing for quite some time, as opposed to it being his first

hand of the night. This inference would be valid if you were informed randomly that he had been

dealt a Royal Flush, but if you had chosen to be present at a single game and he was dealt a Royal

Flush, then it would be an invalid inference. Hacking argues that it is latter of these which

supporters of the multiple universe hypothesis can be likened to; a point which I shall elaborate on

further into the essay.

Those who advocate the multiple universe hypothesis claim that this is exactly the same for the

improbable existence of our universe in its current form. It seems to be logical to claim that, if there

were/are billions of other universes, it is probable that life would have eventually emerged in one of

them, and it should be added that the universe which was created with the capacity to foster life is

this universe. Supporters argue that the hypothesis that there are, or have been, multiple

universes is seenas being supported by the evidential fact that we exist [Crabb, 2006]. As it is

incredibly unlikely that a life-supporting universe was created completely at random, our mereexistence suggests that there must have been many opportunities for the emergence of such a

universe. If we compare it to the Royal Flush analogy, it is far more likely, says the multiple universe

supporter, that this is one in billions of universes, as opposed to the first ever created.

This is the case put forward by those who use the multiple universe hypothesis to offer a rational

alternative to the design argument. Critics of the theory that this universe was designed claim that:

It is indeed extremely improbable that a random concatenation of the forces,

energies, particles, and fields of the universeshould, in a single trial, form intoanything orderly, let alone something that supports our form of intelligent life.

But why suppose the universe to be made by one single roll of myriad dice?

Think instead of a sequence of indefinitely or infinitely many chance events.

Sooner or later, mere chance would give an organisation like ours. We need

invoke nothing but chance to explain the order in the universe and the fine

adjustment of means to ends. [Hacking, 1987]


4/11


Hacking, however, claims that this reasoning commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy. For Hacking,

there are two ways in which one can commit this elementary fallacy in probability reasoning1.

Firstly, a gambler picks a poker game to observe at random, and witnesses a poker player being dealt

a Royal Flush. When asked whether he thinks it is the first hand of the night, or if there have been

many hands already played, the gambler decided that there have already been many hands played

before his arrival, as the odds of getting a Royal Flush are quite low: 649,740:1 in a single hand made

up of five cards2. Secondly, a gambler picks a poker game to observe at random, and enters the

room as a poker player is about to be dealt a hand. When asked whether or not this is the first hand

of the night, the gambler asks for the cards to be revealed before he makes his decision. When the

poker player reveals that he has been dealt a Royal Flush, the gambler decides that there have

already been many hands played for the same reason as the first gambler.

It is clear how this analogy relates to the argument put forward by multiple universe theorists, as

the fact that we are witnessing a life-bearing universe would suggest that there have been many

other universes in existences, as the odds of a single universe fostering life are extremely low.

Hacking, however, claims that this line of reasoning is fallacious, as the hands played prior to the

ones witnessed by the gamblers have no effect on the hands which produced Royal Flushes, as each

event is independent of one another. Therefore, in the case of the second gambler, the gamblers

posterior subjective probabilities should be identical to his prior subjective probabilities3.

Therefore, being dealt a Royal Flush, or stumbling upon a universe which has fostered life, is just aslikely on the first attempt as it is on the hundredth; thousandth or millionth attempt, as increasing

the number of attempts does not actually decrease the odds, it just makes it less surprising that the

unlikely event has occurred. One cannot explain the occurrence of a Royal Flush or a universe

teeming with life with a long sequence of previous attempts. However, it is noted by Leslie and

McGrath that this is misinterpretation of the multiple universe hypothesis, which reads differently to

how it was portrayed by Hacking, arguing that, given many opportunities to create a life fostering

universe, one universe or another will eventually be created with that capacity.

However, there is a second argument put forward by critics of the design argument, which does

not rely on the existence of multiple universes. It reads as follows:

the universe has been around for ever so long, so it is not in the least

surprising that it should have got into its present orderly state. Given an old

1Hacking, I. The Inverse Gamblers Fallacy: the Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied

to Wheeler Universes2

http://poker.sportinglife.com/Strategies/story_55895.shtml3Hacking, I. The Inverse Gamblers Fallacy: the Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied

to Wheeler Universes
http://poker.sportinglife.com/Strategies/story_55895.shtmlhttp://poker.sportinglife.com/Strategies/story_55895.shtmlhttp://poker.sportinglife.com/Strategies/story_55895.shtmlhttp://poker.sportinglife.com/Strategies/story_55895.shtml


5/11


enough universe, we would expect our order to arrive by mere chance. [Hacking,

1987]

Hacking, however, claims that this argument still commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy. Although it

does not state that there are multiple universes, it still assumes that prior events have a bearing on

the outcome, which, whilst not being identical, is merely a variation of the same argument. There is,

for Hacking, no real distinction between claiming that our universe is ordered in this way because

there have been infinite opportunities for it to be, and claiming that it is ordered in such a way

because it has infinite time to reach this order. No matter which argument one chooses, one is still

committing the fallacy of assuming that past events have made this outcome more likely.

Supporters of this theory, however, claim that, as modern science informs us that our universe is

infinitely old, then it is more likely that it began as being unordered, and became organised and able

to foster life as time went on. Of course, Hacking claims that this, too, is incorrect, as, he points out,

our universe, according to modern science, is infinitely old, but has been fine-tuned from its origins.

According to Hacking, as science offers the Big Bang theory as the origins of the universe, then there

would actually be no room for chance to play a part in the order of the universe after the first few

seconds of its existence. Therefore, the claim that the age of the universe has impacted on its

current order cannot, if one views the argument in that way, possibly be true.

For Hacking, if one wishes to uphold the popular argument against design theory, it would have to

be modified to claim that there have been many sequential universes, with our universe as the final

and most recent. This is the notion suggested by Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle, which

argues that there have been billions of possible universes, none of which were suitable for

habitation, then at the creation of our universe, the evolution of the multiverse ceased, the possible

universes collapsed, and this universe became actuality. In Wheelers Participatory Anthropic

Principle, each possible universe succeeds the one before it, but there is a second theory of co-

existing universes suggested by Carter, who argues that all possible universes co-exist with one

another. In each theory, once a habitable universe was created, the creation of further universes

ceased, leaving only this universe. The main similarity between the two theories, however, is that

universes, both actual and possible, do not have memories, as this would make for an unfair attempt

each time. As a deck of cards must not remember how they were last dealt in order to ensure that

any improbable outcomes are fair, universes must not remember their previous configurations.

Therefore, the multiple universe hypothesis can only be correct if all individual universes are

randomly configured.

For Hacking, it is often assumed (mistakenly, he believes) that, analogously, Wheeler universes and

Carter universes are very similar. However, he argues that there is a fundamental logical difference


6/11


between the two notions: Wheelers theory commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy, and Carters

theory does not. Whilst neither, by definition, can possibly have any empirical evidence to prove

indefinitely that their version of the multiverse is correct, Hacking claims that Carters theory of co-

existence does not commit the same error as Wheelers sequential theory.

Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle, according to Hacking, cannot be proven correct by

either of the only two explanations he believes can explain the multiverse. Firstly, he argues, it

cannot be explained by what he calls an inference to the best explanation. An inference to the

best explanation is the view that, if Event A is known, and Event B is the best explanation of Event A,

then one can infer that Event B explains Event A. If we take this in the context of Wheelers

sequential universe, it would read as follows: we know that this universe exists in this order, and the

best explanation of this is that there have been a sequence of possible universes, of which this is the

last one, so therefore, we can infer that a sequence of universes is the explanation for our ordered

universe.

Secondly, Hacking claims that our ordered universe could be partially explained by what he calls a

prioriphysics, which includes features such as symmetry and simplicity, but he goes on to argue

that, even in conjunction, a prioriphysics and Participatory Anthropic Principle do not provide

enough explanation for why this universe is as it is.

However, the first explanation is the one which Hacking claims commits the Inverse Gamblers

Fallacy. As stated, if one attempts to use an inference to the best explanation in order to explainhow this universe came to be in its ordered state, the conclusion is that this is because this universe

is the last in a long sequence of possible universes. For Hacking, this theory is not a satisfactory

explanation for the result achieved. Supporters of Participatory Anthropic Principle claim that a

sequence of successive universes makes it far more probable that we should end up with this

ordered universe. However, as Hacking notes, to assume that past universes have any effect on the

state of this universe is to commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy, as the amount of attempts made at

an ordered universe does not make it any more likely that one will occur, it only makes it less

surprising when it does. Conversely, as aforementioned, critics of Hacking do not agree with him on

this point. Leslie and McGrath argue that supporters of the Participatory Anthropic Principle would

claim that this universe is only this specific one because this is the one which was randomly

generated with the capacity to create and sustain life, and only find ourselves present in this

universe because of this property. The more sequential (or co-existing) universes there are, the

more likely it is that one will be created with the properties of this universe, and becomes home to

sentient beings. Therefore, supporters of Wheeler argue not that this universe needs a causal link to


7/11


other universes, as Hacking claims they believe, but that, statistically, the more universes that have

been created, the more likely one such as this one will occur.

Therefore, on these grounds, one can assume that Wheelers theory of sequential universes does

lead one to commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy if it is believed. However, the same cannot be said

for Carters theory of co-existing universes. As with Wheelers theory of sequential universes,

Hacking notes that Carters theory cannot have empirical evidence in order to show that is correct,

so can only by proven by one (or both) of the two explanations mentioned earlier. However, unlike

Wheelers theory, Carters cannot be faulted on an inference to the best explanation. For Hacking,

where Wheelers notion fails to provide the best explanation for the orderly universe we live in,

Carters theory, deduced from Big Bang cosmology, provides a satisfactory explanation for this

improbable event. Therefore, Hacking claims that if all logically possible universes consistent with

classical big-bang cosmology actually co-exist4, then this would provide an acceptable explanation

for the order of this universe.

Critics of Hacking, however, claim that he is mistaken in his dismissal of Wheelers theory of

sequential universes in favour of Carters theory of co-existence. In The Inverse Gamblers Fallacy

and Cosmology A Reply to Hacking, McGrath, whilst admitting that there is a major logical

difference between Wheelers andCarters theories, as noted by Hacking, does not accept Hackings

second claim that Wheelers notion commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy but Carters notion does

not.McGrath accepts that, superficially, Carters co-existence model does appear to be the superior of

the two theories, because, as Hacking notes, it is a deductive theory based on classical Big Bang

cosmology, whereas Wheelers theory reads that, because of this universe, it is probable that thus

universe is the last in a lengthy sequence of universes. Whilst McGrath disagrees with Hackings

view that Wheelers sequential theory commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy, he does acknowledge

that Wheelers theory is the less stable of the two multiple universe hypothesises, as Carters notion

has the advantage of not appealing to probability. As McGrath notes, Wheeler still appeals to

what is merely probably, whereas the Carter model relies on strict deduction5.

However, does this mean that Hacking is correct, and Carters theory is the only multiple universe

hypothesis which does not commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy? McGrath argues that this is not

the case. He claims that there is a problem with Carters model of co-existing universes: Carters

deductive theory is fundamentally based on what McGrath calls the principle of plenitude, or

abundance. For McGrath, this is necessarily false, as, he claims that, it is logically impossible that

4Ibid.

5P. McGrath The Inverse Gamblers Fallacy and Cosmology A Reply to Hacking P. 265-8


8/11


all logically possible universes exist6. For example, it is logically possible that there is a universe

which is not consistent with any other logically possible universe, so therefore, it is a logical

impossibility that this universe could be a part of Carters theory of co-existence.

In order to make Carters theory feasible, according to McGrath, it would have to remove the

principle of plenitude, altering the notion to state that the nature of this universe makes it probable

that it is one of many co-existing universe, as opposed to it being definite that it is one of many.

However, surely if this is the case, then Carters theory would commit the same fallacy as Wheelers

theory, which is exactly the notion Hackings paper attempts to counter.

McGrath uses an analogy similar to Hackings to explain how Wheeler and Carter universes are

much more similar than Hacking gives them credit for. McGrath proposes a scenario where, rather

than a gambler reasoning that there have been many poker hands played when a Royal Flush occurs,

he is called when this event happens after a large group of people play poker hands simultaneously

(this is a variation of an analogy McGrath uses in defence of Wheelers sequential universe theory

which I shall discuss shortly). If the gambler is called, he can reason that there were probably a large

number of people playing poker hands in unison, as opposed to just two or three. This is no

different to the way in which the gambler would reason if he were to use Wheelers theory, as he

would reason that there were probably a large number of sequential hands played as opposed to a

few. Clearly, the argument suggested by McGrath has the same structure as Hackings, with the only

variant being the way in which the hands are played.If one were to apply the altered Carter hypothesis to this universe, it can be claimed that, (a) it is

highly unlikely that this order would appear from a singular universe, as Wheeler also argues, and (b)

that multiple universes would simultaneously co-exist as opposed to existing in sequence. Clearly,

the argument remains the same, with the only difference being in (b), as Wheeler would claim the

inverse (that multiple universes would exist in sequence as opposed to co-existing with one

another). Therefore, if McGraths criticism is correct, Hacking would have to either concede that

Wheelers Participatory Anthropic Principle does not commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy, and is

therefore a plausible version of the multiple universe hypothesis, and therefore a feasible

explanation of our orderly universe, or that Carters theory of co-existing universes is also fallacious

and is not satisfactory to explain the order of this universe.

Even if one removes Carters theory from the argument and focuses onlyon Wheelers sequential

universe theory, there are still strong criticisms against Hackings view that Wheeler commits the

Inverse Gamblers Fallacy. Both McGrath and Leslie claim that Hacking is mistaken in his view, each

6Ibid.


9/11


for a variety of reasons, but almost all concerning the way in which Hacking portrays Wheelers

notion in his analogy, which both authors believe is a misrepresentation.

McGrath, for example, concedes that he believes that the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy proposed by

Hacking is a genuine fallacy which can be applied to some arguments in certain circumstances, but

he denies that it is committed by Wheelers attempt to explain the order of the universe. His first

point, which is not related to Hackings representation of Wheeler universes in his analogy, is that

whilst it is true that an improbable outcome such as a Royal Flush or an ordered universe is far more

likely to occur if there have been many opportunities for it to do so, Hacking appears to overlook the

fact that every poker hands outcome in an improbable one, as is the state of every possible

universe. For example, it is just as improbable that a poker player will be dealt a hand of a pair of

threes, a seven, a ten and a Jack as it is that he would be dealt a hand consisting of a ten, a Jack, a

Queen, a King and an ace. Therefore, it is just as improbable that a universe made entirely of rocks

will be created as it is that an orderly universe such as ours will be created. Therefore, when an

improbable outcome such as a Royal Flush occurs, that it should be improbable is not actually

improbable, as any hand that was dealt would be an improbable one.

McGraths argument is that Hacking places too much emphasis on this universe, and as Leslie

points out in No Inverse Gamblers Fallacy in Cosmology, Hacking is only focusing on the existence of

a universe that supports life, when he could focus on a universe that supports clouds, or precious

metals, which is probably a far more likely scenario than one which supports life. One could arguethat Hackings focus on life is related to the weak anthropic principle, which argues that this universe

is necessarily able to foster life as we are here observing it, which is a tautology. We are only

observing it because it supports life, and it is only because we are observing it that we are intrigued

by it.

However, as this is a tautology, one can argue that, whilst Hacking does appear to be focused on

the existence of life in this universe, it is because the weak anthropic principle only deals with the

fact thatthere is life in this universe, not whyit is able to foster life in the first place. The emergence

of a universe perfectly attuned to support life is of particular interest to us as we are the product of

it, so this criticism of Hacking is not a particularly strong one.

However, unfortunately for Hacking, the further criticisms of his argument are far more damning

than the previous one, which concern various problems that stem from Hackings representation of

Wheelers theory of sequential universes, which both Leslie and McGrath believe is incorrect.

Firstly, McGrath points out that, in his analogy, Hackings gambler observes the improbable event of

a Royal Flush being dealt occur, then reasons that it is likely that this is the latest in a long series of

hands dealt because of its outcome. McGrath claims that this is a misrepresentation on Hackings


10/11


part, for reasons which shall be explained shortly, and suggests his own analogy which, he believes,

is more accurate than the one proposed by Hacking.

McGraths analogy reads as follows: a gambler enters a room before the dealing of poker hands

has begun, and says that he is going to take a nap, but he is to be woken when a Royal Flush is dealt.

He then leaves the room and goes to sleep. When he is called, he would have no idea how long he

had been asleep for, so would not be able to estimate how many hands had been dealt before the

appearance of a Royal Flush, but he reasons that it is likely that many hands have been dealt, as it is

unlikely (but not impossible) that a Royal Flush would occur within the first few hands played.

Although there does not appear to be much variation between the two analogies, McGrath claims

that this is a legitimate representation of Wheelers theory, whereas Hackings is incorrect. Why this

is the case is explained by Whitaker in On Hackings Criticism of the Wheeler Anthropic Principle,

where he presents the example of a casino which, by law, is only able to open if the first roll of the

dice of the night provides a double six. Therefore, when the dice are rolled and the improbable

double six is thrown, we are not surprised to see a photo of the open casino in newspapers, as there

is only a photo because it is open, and we would not be surprised that the casino had not been able

to open for several months previously, as the elusive double six is unlikely to be rolled on the first

few nights of the law being initiated.

If we apply this to Wheelers theory, we can see that Hacking is mistaken. In his analogy, the

gambler is present before a Royal Flush happens to be dealt, and bases his reasoning on that.However, Whitakers analogy is more accurate when it comes to describing the universe, and is

supported by McGrath and Leslie. McGrath claims that, in his representation of Wheelers theory,

the gambler is aware in advance that he will be woken when a Royal Flush is dealt, and is aware that

he is unlikely to be woken within the first few hands played. Similarly, we know that Whitakers

photograph was only taken when the casino was open, and that was unlikely to occur within the first

few nights of the law being passed.

When this is applied to the universe, it becomes clearer how Hacking is mistaken. Life did not

happen to just stumble upon this ordered universe, as Hacking would appear to be suggesting, but it

is here because of this ordered universe, which is the claim both McGrath and Whitaker make in

their analogies. For example, if we continue to refer to McGraths example, we can see that the

gambler is only called if a Royal Flush is dealt, so if there is no Royal Flush, the gambler will remain

asleep. Similarly, if there is no life supporting universe, there will be no life to observe it.

Finally, Leslie notes that Hacking claims that supporters of Wheelers multiple universe hypothesis

argue that the chances of the existence ofthis universe are increased by the previous existence of

other universes. This is a claim which has been raised already in this essay, and was dismissed as


11/11


supporters of Wheeler do not argue that this universe is causally connected with any other.

However, Leslie offers a further criticism of Hackings notion, arguing that the claims he makes are

false, as he confuses luck with amazement. To clarify this point, I will use an example from Our

Improbable Existence and the Multiple-universe Hypothesis [Crabb, 2006]: when we read in a

newspaper that John Smith has been struck by a meteor whilst taking a walk on a moor, we are

amazed by his bad luck. However, if we then learn that there were actually over a thousand people

on the moor alongside John Smith, this makes it far more probable that somebodywould have been

struck by the meteor, and therefore, we are no longer amazed by John Smiths bad luck.

How is this related to the multiple universe hypothesis? Evidently, we have found ourselves in a

universe that has the capacity to create and sustain life, and naturally, we are quite amazed by this

fact, and also by our sheer good luck. However, if there are an infinite number of possible universes,

it is far more probable that, eventually, one of them would have the capacity to support life.

Therefore, we would be far less amazed at our apparent good luck. Leslie argues that Wheeler and

his advocates are not arguing that this universe has the capability to support life because there have

been an infinite number of possible universes, but that the existence of these other universes would

make it far more probable that a universe such as this one would be generated. Therefore, the

notion proposed by Wheeler does not commit the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy.

In conclusion, I believe that Hacking is incorrect when he claims that Wheelers multiple universe

hypothesis commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy. His interpretation of Wheelers notion isincorrect, and it is this misrepresentation which he bases his argument on. Furthermore, Hacking

wishes to support the notion proposed by Carter, and in doing so, he must also concur that

Wheelers theory is correct. Therefore, I do not believe that the inference to the multiple universe

hypothesis commits the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy.

Documents

Multi Verse Hypothesis