# Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [January 15, 2021, 5:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025 "2021-01-15T05:30:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025/21 "2021-01-16T01:46:50Z")

</div>

Y’all may also like this by Goff:

> **[Did the universe design itself?](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11153-018-9692-z)**
>
> Many philosophers and scientists believe that we need an explanation as to why the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for life. The standard two options are: theism and the multiverse hypothesis. Both of these...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 4:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025/22 "2021-01-16T04:16:38Z")

</div>

Looking at the question of calculating that astronomically small probability of of “fine tuned” universe, I see some other mathematical flaws. Many physical constants are linked, meaning that if one changes others change with it. However many factors there are, they certainly are not all independent, leading of a reduction in dimensionality. Instead of 100 independent random factors it could be far fewer; I’d bet there are fewer than 20 independent factors describing the nature of our universe, but I don’t expect any way to settle the question in my lifetime.

This still leave plenty of room for our universe to be unlikely, if that is how you see it, I just think throwing out numbers like 10^229 is a bit dishonest, because it assumes every universal constant is random AND independent of all others, which we already know isn’t true.

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#):
>
> A few shots of Smirnoff also works.
> 
> [Sorry. It’s Friday. And I don’t even drink.]

It’s never too late to start! 😉 🍹 🍻

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thoughtful](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/thoughtful/32/9230_2.png) [@thoughtful](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/thoughtful)\
**Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025/23 "2021-01-16T08:34:14Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> You didn’t make a logical argument, you just made an assertion.

Thanks for proving my point. I never said it was anything other than that.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Okay, suppose I tell you you get more than one roll, but not how many more.

That’s not an accurate analogy for what the article describes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2021, 1:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025/24 "2021-01-19T13:37:14Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> So what are the odds of rolling 6 if you’ve got two or more rolls? More than 1 in 6 of course. It has to be _at least_ the odds of rolling a six in _two_ rolls, wouldn’t it?

Fun fact: if the probability of an event is 1/N, and there are N opportunities for the event to occur, then as N gets large the probability of _at least one event_ is approximately 63%.

This also means that approximately 63% of all possible events will have occurred at least once. It’s hard to deny the possibility of any event when there are many opportunities for that event to occur (proportional to 1/N).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 1:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025/25 "2021-01-26T13:37:30Z")

</div>

Closed on January 26, 2021, 1:37pm UTC

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/13025.md?page=1)