Q8

[ShannonM90]

What is the difference between answer choice B and D?

[ohthatpatrick]

I would start by re-reading the portion of the 3rd paragraph dealing with the cosmologists to see what textual ammunition they have for these answer choices.

What were we told about these cosmologists?

- they were asking themselves, "how is it that our universe came to exist, given how improbable its fine-tuned laws are?"

- their answer: maybe there are tons of universes, most of which wouldn't have the fine-tuning ours does, but that would at least explain how our universe could exist (i.e. if there's only a 1% chance of our universe, then 1 out of every 100 universes could look like our improbable one).


(A) Nothing in the multiverse explanation involved one universe influencing another (this would be like saying you flipped a coin 100 times and the 53rd flip influenced the 82nd flip, or whatever)

(B) No, the probability of our universe (or any containing life) doesn't change in the multiverse idea. There's still a 1% chance of our universe. The multiverse idea is just saying, "Well ... if there are actually 100 universes then you WOULD get one that looks like ours. If there are 1000 universes, then you'd get 10 that look like ours."

(C) TOO STRONG: "the laws must be the same in every part"? This also contradicts the whole idea of the multiverse, in which different universes within the multiverse could have their own set of laws/conditions.

(D) Yes, this is the multiverse idea. If you have enough universes, then even an improbable universe like ours (a 1% chance of occurring) would still be likely, if not certain, to occur. Line 25-27 offers good support.
"given the sheer number of possibilities (i.e. universes), nature would have a had a good chance (i.e. likely) to get the "right" set of laws (i.e. those that make it possible for life to develop) at least once"

(E) TOO STRONG. Lines 25-27 specify "AT LEAST once". The multiverse idea does not say that only one out of the many possible universes contains life.