Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-f7d5f74f5-4fqgl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-10-03T14:19:17.000Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2021

Simon Friederich
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
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.)


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, 807:1111, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. C., and Grohs, E. On the habitability of universes without stable deuterium. Astroparticle Physics, 91:90104, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adlam, E. The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47:2132, 2014.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguirre, A., and Tegmark, M. Multiple universes, cosmic coincidences and other dark matters. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005:003, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, D., and Loewer, B. Interpreting the many worlds interpretation. Synthese, 77:195213, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, A., and Sorbo, L. Can the universe afford inflation? Physical Review D, 70:063528, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrhein, V. Greenland, S., and McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567:305307, 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., and Dvali, G. The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter. Physics Letters B, 429:263272, 1998.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. J. Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38:153169, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, R., and Guidice, G. F. Upper bounds on suupersymmetric particle masses. Nuclear Physics B, 306:6376, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, L. A. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29:529564, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, L. A. Fine-tuning in the context of Bayesian theory testing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8:253269, 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, 477:37273743, 2018.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1:195200, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38:447452, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénétreau-Dupin, Y. Blurring out cosmic puzzles. Philosophy of Science, 82:879891, 2015a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénétreau-Dupin, Y. The Bayesian who knew too much. Synthese, 192:15271542, 2015b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertone, G., and Tait, T. M. P. A new era in the search for dark matter. Nature, 562:5156, 2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertone, G., Hooper, D., and Silk, J. Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints. Physics Reports, 405:279390, 2005.CrossRefGoogle 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, 85:166193, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltzmann, L. On certain questions of the theory of gases. Nature, 51:413415, 1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrelli, A., and Castellani, E. The practice of naturalness: A historical-philosophical perspective. Foundations of Physics, 49:860878, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, N. The doomsday argument, Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe. Synthese, 127:359387, 2001.CrossRefGoogle 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, 157:5978, 2007.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousso, R. Complementarity in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 79:123524, 2009.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousso, R., Freivogel, B., and Yang, I. Boltzmann babies in the proper time measure. Physical Review D, 77:103514, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousso, R., Freivogel, B., and Yang, I. Properties of the scale factor measure. Physical Review D, 79:063513, 2009.CrossRefGoogle 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, 46:6172, 2009.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Self-location is no problem for conditionalization. Synthese, 182:393411, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Four problems about self-locating belief. Philosophical Review, 121:149177, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. J. Everettian confirmation and Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Wilson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:683693, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. J., and Leitgeb, H. When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis, 66:119127, 2006.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E., and Olsson, E. J. Is our existence in need of further explanation? Inquiry, 41:255275, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, B. J., and Rees, M. J. The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature, 278:605612, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carretero-Sahuquillo, M. A. The charm quark as a naturalness success. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 58:5161, 2019.CrossRefGoogle 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, A310:347363, 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, 30:14951506, 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., and Holt, R. A. Proposed experiment to test local hidden variables theories. Physical Review Letters, 23:880884, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colbeck, R., and Renner, R. No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power. Nature Communications, 2:411, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 145:325338, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conitzer, V. A devastating example for the Halfer Rule. Philosophical Studies, 172:19851992, 2015a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conitzer, V. A Dutch Book against Sleeping Beauties who are evidential decision theorists. Synthese, 192:28872899, 2015b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbelli, E., and Salucci, P. The extended rotation curve and the dark matter halo of M33. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311:441447, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozic, M. Imaging and Sleeping Beauty: A case for double-halfers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52:137143, 2011.CrossRefGoogle 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 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 47:5561, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, R., and Thébault, K. P. Many worlds: Decoherent or incoherent. Synthese, 192:15591580, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, R. Hartmann, D., and Sprenger, J. The no alternatives argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:213234, 2015.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dembski, W. A. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, D. Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 455:31293137, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, R. H. Dirac’s, Cosmology and Mach’s Principle. Nature, 192:440441, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. Doomsday–Or: The dangers of statistics. The Philosophical Quarterly, 42:778784, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. Reasoning about the future: Doom and beauty. Synthese, 156:427439, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. A New Basis for Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 165:199208, 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dizadji-Bahmani, F. The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics persists. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66:257283, 2015.CrossRefGoogle 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, 62:292296, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, K., and Pust, J. Probabilistic arguments for multiple universes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88:288307, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, K., and Pust, J. Diachronic dutch books and Sleeping Beauty. Synthese, 164:281287, 2008.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. The SAP also rises: A critical examination of the anthropic principle. Philosophical Quarterly, 24:307317, 1987.Google Scholar
Earman, J., and Mosterín, J. A critical look at inflationary cosmology. Philosophy of Science, 66:149, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, W. Probability theory and the Doomsday argument. Mind, 102:483488, 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, 60:143147, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. Defeating Dr. Evil with self-locating belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69:383396, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R., and Stoeger, W. R. A note on infinities in eternal inflation. General Relativity and Gravitation, 41:14751484, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, P. F. The fine-tuning argument and the requirement of total evidence. Philosophy of Science, 84:639658, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, H. ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29:454462, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P. Occam’s razor and possible worlds. The Monist, 65:456464, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P., and Armstrong, D. M. An argument against David Lewis’ theory of possible worlds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62:164168, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederich, S. Motivating Wittgenstein’s perspective on mathematical sentences as norms. Philosophia Mathematica, 19:119, 2011.CrossRefGoogle 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, M. K., and Lee, B. W. Rare decay modes of the K mesons in gauge theories. Physical Review D, 10:897, 1974.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, G. W., Hawking, S. W., and Stewart, J. M. A natural measure on the set of all universes. Nuclear Physics B, 281:736751, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, G. W., and Turok, N. Measure problem in cosmology. Physical Review D, 77:063516, 2008.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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 Scholar
Gould, S. J. Mind and supermind. Natural History, 92:3438, 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, 42:615631, 2012.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, A., et al. A cosmic controversy. Scientific American, May 10, 2017. available online at, accessed 23 August 2019.Google Scholar
Guth, A. H. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems. Physical Review D, 23:347356, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, A. H. Inflation and eternal inflation. Physics Reports, 333:555574, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, A. H. Eternal inflation and its implications. Journal of Physics A, 40:6811, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I . The inverse gambler’s fallacy: The argument from design; The anthropic principle applied to Wheeler Universes. Mind, 96:331340, 1987.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartle, J. B., and Srednicki, M. Are we typical? Physical Review D, 75:123523, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S., and Fitelson, B. A new Garber-style solution to the problem of old evidence. Philosophy of Science, 82:712717, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawking, S. W., and Page, D. N. How probable is inflation? Nuclear Physics B, 298:789809, 1988.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. T., and Simmons, E. H. Strong dynamics and electroweak symmetry breaking. Physics Reports, 381:235402, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, C. Beauty and the bets. Synthese, 139:405420, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, C. J. Why the universe is just so. Reviews of Modern Physics, 72:11491161, 2000.CrossRefGoogle 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, 36:295312, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollands, S., and Wald, R. M. Essay: An alternative to inflation. General Relativity and Gravitation, 34:20432055, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. Sleeping Beauty awakened: New odds at the dawn of the new day. Analysis, 64:1021, 2004.CrossRefGoogle 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: 547555, 1991.CrossRefGoogle 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, 723:547555, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J., and Loeb, A. Cosmic inflation theory faces challenges. Scientific American, February 1, 2017. Available online at, accessed 23 August 2019.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. Sleeping Beauty: A wake-up call. Philosophia Mathematica, 13:194201, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning, many worlds, and the ‘inverse gambler’s fallacy’. Noûs, 39:337347, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning is not surprising. Analysis, 66:269275, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, C. Fine-tuning and old evidence. Noûs, 41:550558, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, S., Kallosh, R., Linde, A., and Trivedi, S. P. De Sitter vacua in string theory. Physical Review D, 68:046005, 2003.CrossRefGoogle 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, 70:384395, 2005.CrossRefGoogle 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, 17:5987, 1967.Google Scholar
Koperski, J. Should we care about fine-tuning? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:303319, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotzen, M. Selection biases in likelihood arguments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63:825839, 2012.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leegwater, G. An impossibility theorem for parameter independent hidden variable theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 54:1834, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehners, J.-L., and Steinhard, P. J. Planck 2013 results support the cyclic universe. Physical Review D, 87:123533, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerche, W., Lüst, D., and Schellekens, A. N. Chiral four-dimensional heterotic strings from selfdual lattices. Nuclear Physics B, 287:477, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. Anthropic explanations in cosmology. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pages 87–95, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. No inverse gambler’s fallacy in cosmology. Mind, 97:269272, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. Universes. London: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. Causal decision theory. Australasion Journal of Philosophy, 59:530, 1981.CrossRefGoogle 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, 61:171176, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. J., and Barnes, L. A. Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P. J. Quantum Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 67:5965, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P. J. A note on the doomsday argument. Analysis, 70:2730, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, A. A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems. Physics Letters B, 108:389393, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, A. Sinks in the landscape, Boltzmann brains and the cosmological constant. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2007:002, 2007.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. Scholar
Manson, N. A., and Thrush, M. J. Fine-tuning, multiple universes, and the “This Universe” Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84:6783, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel, H., Shapiro, P. R., and Weinberg, S. Likely values of the cosmological constant. The Astrophysical Journal, 492:29, 1998.CrossRefGoogle 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, 51:2336, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, C. D. The implementation, interpretation, and justification of likelihoods in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62:1935, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, P. J. The inverse gambler’s Fallacy and cosmology: A reply to hacking. Mind, 97:331340, 1988.Google Scholar
McGrew, T., McGrew, L., and Vestrup, E. Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: A sceptical view. Mind, 110:10271038, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, K. Arguing against fundamentality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42:244255, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. Indifference principle and anthropic principle in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24:359389, 1993.CrossRefGoogle 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, 66:1423, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. Sleeping, Beauty and the dynamics of de se belief. Philosophical Studies, 138:2452699, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophysical Journal, 270:365370, 1983.CrossRefGoogle 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, 57:404425, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhanov, V. Inflation without selfreproduction. Fortschritte der Physik, 63:3641, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narveson, J. God by design? In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pages 88–105. London: Routledge, 2003.CrossRefGoogle 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, 75:4568, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. Cosmic confusion: Not supporting versus supporting not. Philosophy of Science, 77:501523, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. Eternal inflation: When probabilities fail. Synthese, in press–018-1734-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberhummer, H., Csótó, A., and Schlattl, H. Stellar production rates of carbon and its abundance in the universe. Science, 289:8890, 2000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olum, K. The Doomsday Argument and the number of possible observers. The Philosophical Quarterly, 52:164184, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D. N. Is our universe likely to decay within 20 billion years? Physical Review D, 78:063535, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. Why Anything? Why This?. London Review of Books, January 22:2427, 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, 76:73100, 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, 67:195212, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, L., and Sundrum, R. Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. Physical Review Letters, 83:3370, 1999.CrossRefGoogle 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, 160:287303, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosaler, J., and Harlander, R. Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 66:118134, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. Sleeping Beauty, countable additivity, and rational dilemmas. Philosophical Review, 119:411447, 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 460:17711788, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellekens, A. N. Life at the interface of particle physics and string theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85:1491, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, M. The dynamics of indexical belief. Erkenntnis, 72:337351, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, W. Belief update across fission. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66: 659682, 2015.CrossRefGoogle 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):2574, 2018.Google Scholar
Shackel, N. Bertrand’s paradox and the principle of indifference. Philosophy of Science, 74:150175, 2007.CrossRefGoogle 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, 22:13591366, 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, 46:122133, 2014.CrossRefGoogle 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, 143:6390, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spekkens, R. W Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A, 71:052108, 2005.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinhardt, P. J. The inflation debate. Scientific American, April:36–43, 2011.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tegmark, M. Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory? Annals of Physics, 270:151, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tegmark, M. What does inflation really predict? Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005:001, 2005.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tegmark, M., and Rees, M. J. Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−5? The Astrophysical Journal, 499:526532, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, H. Modal realism and inductive scepticism. Noûs, 27:331354, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. The relevance of self-locating beliefs. Philosophical Review, 117:555605, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. An embarrassment for double-halfers. Thought, 1:146151, 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, 8:10031017, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzan, J.-Ph. Varying constants, gravitation and cosmology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 14:2, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 12:245261, 1998.CrossRefGoogle 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, 74:846849, 1995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vilenkin, A. A measure of the multiverse. Journal of Physics A, 40:67776785, 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, 38:311332, 2007.CrossRefGoogle 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, 70:613635, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59:2607, 1987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, S. Anthropic reasoning and typicality in multiverse cosmology and string theory. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23:4231, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. Firing squads and fine-tuning: Sober on the design argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:809821, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. A note on design: What’s fine-tuning go to do with it? Analysis, 70:431438, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. The argument from divine indifference. Analysis, 72:707715, 2012.CrossRefGoogle 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, 49:102108, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterich, C. Fine-tuning problem and the renormalization group. Physics Letters B, 140:215222, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterich, C. Where to look for solving the gauge hierarchy problem? Physics Letters B, 718:573576, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. Fine-tuning and multiple universes. Noûs, 34:260267, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. What’s fine-tuning got to do with it: A reply to Weisberg. Analysis, 71:676679, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125GeV Higgs. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51:8296, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. Everettian confirmation and Sleeping Beauty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65:573598, 2014.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar