Holistic Versus Fragmented Multiverses: Empirical Access via Causal and Grounding Signatures

Baptiste Le Bihan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Holistic Versus Fragmented Multiverses: Empirical Access via Causal and Grounding Signatures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that holistic multiverses—unlike fragmented ones—can in principle leave empirical signatures inside our universe, through either causal traces or non-causal grounding relations.

desk verdict The holistic/fragmented distinction is a genuine contribution, but the grounding-based signatures carry less evidential punch than the framing suggests; still, the paper's own hedging keeps the central thesis defensible in a weaker form. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04918 v1 pith:LEYYZMSW submitted 2025-09-05 physics.hist-ph

Baptiste Le Bihan This is my paper

classification physics.hist-ph

keywords multiverseempiricalconfirmationgroundingEverettianquantummechanicseternalinflationstringlandscapeconformalcycliccosmologymetaphysicsofphysics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that some multiverse hypotheses are not inherently untestable. The author draws a line between fragmented multiverses, in which universes are maximally isolated and share no overarching unifying structure, and holistic multiverses, in which all universes are embedded in a larger physical or metaphysical structure that determines features of each universe. Because holistic structures can leave traces inside our universe—directly through causal contact, or indirectly through a non-causal 'grounding' relation—they can in principle receive the same kind of empirical support as other claims in physics. The conclusion is qualified: fragmented multiverses remain empirically inaccessible, but leading scientific proposals such as Everettian quantum mechanics, eternal inflation, and cyclic cosmologies are holistic, and their prospects for confirmation should be assessed case by case rather than dismissed wholesale.

What carries the argument

The central object is the notion of an empirical signature: a quantity whose value can be connected to observable outcomes through theoretical links, modeled on empirical grounding. The argument runs through a taxonomy of determination relations that can produce such signatures. Causation is law-mediated determination and comes in spatiotemporal and non-spatiotemporal forms; grounding is a non-causal, in-virtue-of relation that becomes scientifically tractable when it is counterfactually sensitive, so that observable features would differ if the grounding structure differed. Applying this taxonomy to Everettian quantum mechanics, eternal inflation, string theory, and conformal cyclic cosmolo

What would settle it

A decisive counterexample would be two formally consistent holistic multiverses that agree on every within-universe causal fact and every observable but differ in their grounding base—for instance, different global branch weightings—with a proof that no possible measurement inside any universe could distinguish them. On the experimental side, the ongoing XENONnT search for spontaneous-collapse X-ray emission is a live test that could refute the Everettian instance of the grounding route.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that empirical access to a multiverse depends on its metaphysical profile. A multiverse is holistic when a single structure—a universal wavefunction, an inflating field, a conformal cycle, or a more fundamental non-spatiotemporal base—determines the character of the universes it contains; it is fragmented when the universes share no such unifying structure. The paper argues that scientific multiverse proposals are almost always holistic, and that holism gives rise to four kinds of empirical signature: direct causal signatures through spatiotemporal causation, direct causal signatures through non-spatiotemporal causation, indirect signatures by local grounding, and indirect

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that grounding—a non-causal 'in virtue of' relation—can be scientifically tractable enough to produce empirical support when it is counterfactually sensitive; if grounding is only metaphysical decoration, the indirect-signature route loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If holistic multiverses can leave grounding signatures, then the epistemic isolation objection and the 'this universe' objection fail for scientific multiverse proposals: our universe's features can be determined by the larger structure rather than being brute and independent.
Everettian quantum mechanics, while not discriminable from other exactly unitary interpretations by positive evidence, is in principle falsifiable: confirmed departures from unitarity, such as spontaneous-collapse signals, would refute it.
Eternal inflation could be confirmed either by direct bubble-collision imprints in the cosmic microwave background or by global-grounding support, provided the measure problem is resolved.
Conformal cyclic cosmology is among the few scenarios with direct causal signatures—Hawking points and low-variance circles in the CMB—that are being actively searched.
The epistemic profiles are asymmetric: holistic multiverses admit confirmation but resist refutation, while fragmented multiverses resist confirmation but can be falsified indirectly by incompatibility with physics, for instance modal realism under spacetime emergence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The grounding-based route, if accepted, generalizes beyond multiverses: any hidden structure that counterfactually constrains observables could claim the same kind of indirect empirical support, broadening the standards for evidence in fundamental physics.
A testable extension suggested by the paper is to search for rare recoherence events in quantum systems; detecting one would be a striking signature of exact unitarity, although it would not single out Everettian quantum mechanics among unitary rivals.
One consequence the author leaves implicit is that the distinction shifts the burden of proof: critics must show that a given multiverse scenario is fragmented or fails epistemic transparency, not merely that other universes are unobservable.
A reader could test the framework by applying it to a non-multiverse case: if a proposed 'grounding signature' can be redescribed as an ordinary causal or statistical effect without loss, then the signature is not doing distinctively grounding-based epistemic work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this as a philosophy companion chapter, not an empirical paper, and on that scale it's solid. The main new things: the holistic/fragmented split, the four-type signature taxonomy, and the named 'epistemic isolation objection' as a generalization of the this-universe objection. The author also shows good judgement in treating fine-tuning as motivational rather than decisive, and the historical analogies are used carefully. The synthesis across EQM, eternal inflation, the string landscape, and CCC is useful and clearly organised.

The soft spots are real but mostly acknowledged. Section 3 defines holistic multiverses as satisfying an epistemic transparency thesis, so the conclusion that holistic multiverses are empirically accessible is partly analytic. That's not fatal because the concrete applications (bubble collisions, CCC, decoherence) give the notion substantive content, but it deserves a tighter statement. More importantly, the grounding-based indirect signatures in §4.2 don't have independent discriminating power: if you replace 'grounding' with pattern emergence or brute supervenience, the observable evidence is unchanged, as the stress-test note says. The paper concedes this in the EQM case—indirect signatures don't single out Everett—but it doesn't fully draw the consequence: the grounding route may only be a redescription of evidence for the underlying physical framework, not evidence for specifically holistic multiverse metaphysics. The measure problem and Everett probability problem are also bracketed, and those are precisely what the global-grounding signatures would need to be definite.

That said, the direct causal routes (bubble collisions, Hawking points) are more concrete, and the paper is appropriately cautious about their observational status. The overall thesis isn't overblown: it's a qualified in-principle defence, and the author explicitly says these are not current decisive tests. The central distinction survives the critique, just in a narrower form than the rhetoric sometimes suggests.

Who gets value: philosophers of physics and metaphysicians working on multiverse epistemology, grounding, and testability. It's not going to change physics, but it's a clean framework that will be cited for the taxonomy. I'd bring it to a reading group; it invites debate.

Recommendation: yes, send it to peer review. The typology and the epistemic isolation objection are worth refereeing. The referee should press on the epistemic status of grounding and the transparency thesis, but this deserves serious engagement, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the standard objection that multiverse hypotheses can never receive empirical support fails once one distinguishes fragmented from holistic multiverses. Fragmented multiverses, in which universes are maximally isolated with no unifying structure, are conceded to be empirically inaccessible. Holistic multiverses, such as Everettian quantum mechanics, eternal inflation, conformal cyclic cosmology, and string-theoretic landscapes embedded in a generating mechanism, embed universes in a larger structure that can leave empirical signatures in our universe. The paper develops a typology of signatures - direct causal (spatiotemporal or not) and indirect by grounding (local or global) - and applies it to the scenarios. It then argues that the 'this universe' objection and a generalized epistemic isolation objection presuppose the absence of determination relations between multiverse and universe, and so fail against scientifically motivated holistic multiverses. The conclusion is a qualified defence: certain holistic multiverses could in principle be supported by ordinary empirical standards.

Significance. If the argument were sound, it would give philosophers and physicists a principled way to separate empirically promising multiverse scenarios from inherently speculative ones, and it would undercut the 'unscientific' verdict by tying testability to a naturalistic metaphysics of determination. The paper is judicious: it explicitly hedges fine-tuning, admits the Everett probability problem and the measure problem, and is careful not to claim current evidence. It also makes a genuinely useful contribution by cataloguing the different ways multiverse structures could connect to observation. Its main weakness is that its positive route through 'grounding' has no independent empirical purchase, and the definition of holistic multiverse builds in the transparency that the paper wants to establish.

major comments (3)

[Section 3; Section 6] The epistemic transparency thesis is stipulated as a defining feature of holistic multiverses: 'at least some properties of the multiverse must be accessible from within the universes.' This makes the claim that holistic multiverses admit empirical access in principle true by definition, and the later argument that the epistemic isolation objection fails (Section 6) inherits this circularity. The paper needs an independent, non-stipulative characterization of holism or an argument that transparency follows from the physical structure, not from the definition.
[Section 4.2; Section 5.1] The proposed indirect signatures by grounding do not discriminate grounding from other determination relations. The criterion offered - counterfactual sensitivity plus integration with surrounding causal relations - is satisfied by pattern emergence, mereological dependence, and brute supervenience. In the EQM case, the 'local grounding' signature is just the Born-rule statistics delivered by unitary quantum mechanics plus decoherence; the paper itself concedes that these signatures 'do not single out EQM on empirical grounds alone.' An observation that confirms unitary QM would not confirm the specifically holistic claim that branches are grounded in the universal state. Without a test for grounding qua grounding, the grounding route provides no empirical support for the multiverse in the paper's sense.
[Section 5.2; Section 5.3] The global-grounding signature in eternal inflation is explicitly hostage to the measure problem, which the paper leaves unresolved; the direct causal route requires the 'observational luck' of a bubble collision in our past. Thus the paper's best physical examples establish at most conditional testability, not an epistemic advantage of holistic over fragmented multiverses. Similarly, the string landscape is holistic only when embedded in another mechanism (eternal inflation, Everett, brane cosmology); by itself it is fragmented and inert. The paper should state more sharply that, once grounding is set aside, the remaining empirical cases are rare and scenario-specific, and that this weakens the general 'same epistemic standards' claim.

minor comments (5)

[Section 6] The text says 'I have expressed skepticism about the probative weight of fine-tuning arguments (see Section 1),' but the detailed discussion is in Section 2. Please correct the cross-reference.
[Section 5, opening] Typo: 'how the such approaches link or could link' should be 'how such approaches link or could link.'
[Footnote 8] The phrase 'global grounding can either independent of causal processes' is ungrammatical; presumably 'be independent'.
[Reference list] The reference 'Aprile, E. and al. (2025)' should be 'Aprile, E. et al.' with either a full author list or an institutional convention; also add the journal or arXiv details as available.
[Section 5.1] The term 'Everett' is used as a shorthand for 'Everettian quantum mechanics' in places; consider using the full phrase at first mention for readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Definitional circularity in the holistic/fragmented taxonomy; the generic empirical-access claim is stipulated, though the case studies carry independent content.

self definitional [Section 3, 'Holistic vs Fragmented Multiverses'; conclusion used in Sections 1 and 7]
"Holistic multiverses have two important features. First, certain properties of the whole (the multiverse) exist over and above the properties of the parts (the universes). Second, they satisfy an epistemic transparency thesis: at least some properties of the multiverse must be accessible from within the universes."

The chapter's central conclusion—that holistic scenarios 'keep the prospect of empirical confirmation genuinely open' (Section 1)—is built into the definiens of 'holistic multiverse'. If being holistic entails that multiverse properties 'must be accessible from within the universes', then the claim that holistic multiverses admit empirical access is true by stipulation rather than by analysis of scientific practice. The later case studies then function as illustrations of proposals that satisfy this stipulated condition. The hedging in §5.2 (eternal inflation is 'holistic in structure' but may fail the 'transparency condition') shows the definition is applied variably, which further supports the reading that the transparency thesis is not independently established.

full rationale

The paper has genuine non-circular content: the concrete scenarios (bubble collisions in eternal inflation, Hawking points in CCC, decoherence-based Born-rule frequencies in EQM) are externally checkable, and the paper does not rely on a self-citation chain to establish those empirical handles. Read & Le Bihan (2021), Le Bihan (2024), Glick & Le Bihan (2024), etc., are used as background or as further development, not as the sole evidence for the central claim. However, the taxonomy's central move—fragmented multiverses are 'epistemically isolated' and holistic multiverses satisfy an 'epistemic transparency thesis'—stipulates the contested conclusion at the level of definition. Moreover, the paper itself concedes that the EQM indirect-grounding signature 'do[es] not single out EQM on empirical grounds alone', so that route reduces to evidence for unitarity rather than for the multiverse as such; this weakens the grounding-based argument even though it is an underdetermination problem rather than a formal circularity. On balance, the definitional circularity is real but partial: the central claim still has independent support from the direct causal scenarios, hence score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are involved because this is a conceptual argument. The load-bearing commitments are metaphysical and definitional: the epistemic transparency thesis in Section 3 and the tractability of grounding in Section 4.2. No new physical entities are postulated; non-spatiotemporal causation is a relation, not an entity.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Grounding is a scientifically tractable determination relation when it exhibits counterfactual sensitivity, and this gives it empirical purchase.
Section 4.2 asserts that grounding 'earns its epistemic keep' because it is counterfactually sensitive and integrated with causal relations. This is load-bearing for all indirect signatures, but the epistemic value of grounding as a route to evidence is a contested metaphysical assumption.
ad hoc to paper Holistic multiverses satisfy an epistemic transparency thesis: at least some properties of the multiverse must be accessible from within the universes.
Section 3 lists this as a feature of holistic multiverses by definition, which makes the conclusion that holistic multiverses admit empirical access partly stipulative.
domain assumption Scientific multiverse hypotheses are virtually always holistic because they embed universes in a unifying physical or metaphysical structure.
Section 6 asserts this as a generalization about scientific practice, while acknowledging the string landscape without a generative mechanism as a counterexample. No systematic survey is provided.
domain assumption van Fraassen's empirical grounding criterion is the right standard for what counts as an empirical signature.
Section 4 adopts van Fraassen's account of empirical grounding and then extends it into metaphysical territory. The adoption is pragmatic and brackets broader debates about confirmation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holistic Versus Fragmented Multiverses: Empirical Access via Causal and Grounding Signatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEYYZMSW

@misc{pith2026250904918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holistic Versus Fragmented Multiverses: Empirical Access via Causal and Grounding Signatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEYYZMSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04918}
}

read the original abstract

Can multiverse hypotheses ever receive empirical support? Critics argue that multiverse scenarios posit unobservable entities, face severe underdetermination, or fall outside the bounds of science. This chapter challenges that view by offering a naturalistic metaphysical counterpoint to Bayesian approaches, distinguishing fragmented from holistic multiverses. Scientific proposals are almost always holistic: they embed universes within a unifying physical or metaphysical structure that can, in principle, leave empirical signatures inside the universes. I develop a typology of such signatures and show how it applies to leading scenarios from quantum theory, cosmology, and string theory. This framework clarifies why objections such as the `this universe' objection and a newly articulated generalization, the epistemic isolation objection, fail against scientifically motivated multiverses. The upshot is a qualified defence: while fragmented multiverses remain empirically inaccessible, certain holistic multiverses could, in principle, be supported by the same epistemic standards used elsewhere in physics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[1]

Aguirre, A. and M. Tegmark (2011). Born in an infinite universe: A cosmological interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D\/ 84 , 105002

2011
[2]

An, D., K. A. Meissner, P. Nurowski, and R. Penrose (2020). Apparent evidence for H awking points in the CMB sky. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 495\/ (3), 3403--3408

2020
[3]

Aprile, E. and al. (2025). Challenging spontaneous quantum collapse with XENONnT . Arxiv.org/abs/2506.05507\/

arXiv 2025
[4]

Ashtekar, A. and G. J. Galloway (2005). Some uniqueness results for dynamical horizons. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics\/ 9\/ (1), 1--30

2005
[5]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2022). Composing spacetime. The Journal of Philosophy\/ 119\/ (1), 33--54

2022
[6]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2023). Trouble on the horizon for presentism. Philosophers' Imprint\/ 23

2023
[7]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2024). Causal theories of spacetime. No\^ u s\/ 58\/ (1), 202--224

2024
[8]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2025). Causal set theory is (strongly) causal. Foundations of Physics\/ 55\/ (4), 1--35

2025

Show all 88 references

[9]

Le Bihan, and J

Baron, S., B. Le Bihan, and J. Read (2025). Scientific theory and possibility. Erkenntnis\/ 1 , 1--17

2025
[10]

Baron, S. and K. Miller (2015). Causation sans time. American Philosophical Quarterly\/ 52\/ (1), 27--40

2015
[11]

Isenbaev, K

Bodnia, E., V. Isenbaev, K. Colburn, J. Swearngin, and D. Bouwmeester (2024). The quest for CMB signatures of conformal cyclic cosmology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.06021

2024 arXiv
[12]

Bojowald, M. (2008). Loop quantum cosmology. Living Reviews in Relativity\/ 11\/ (1), 4

2008
[13]

(forthcoming)

Boyce, K. (forthcoming). On essentialist and anti-essentialist replies to the this-universe objection. Analysis\/
[14]

Breuval, L., C. D. Huang, and A. G. Riess (2025). The Legacy of Henrietta Leavitt: A Re-analysis of the First Cepheid Period Luminosity Relation . Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific\/ 137\/ (4), 044001

2025
[15]

Carroll, S. M. (2019). Beyond falsifiability: Normal science in a multiverse. In R. Dardashti, R. Dawid, and K. Thébault (Eds.), Why Trust a Theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics , pp.\ 300--314. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

2019
[16]

Carroll, S. M. and A. Singh (2019). Mad-Dog Everettianism: Quantum Mechanics at Its Most Minimal , pp.\ 95--104. Cham: Springer International Publishing

2019
[17]

Copernicus, N. (1992). On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Originally published 1543

1992
[18]

Crowther, K. (2025). Why Do We Want a Theory of Quantum Gravity? Cambridge University Press

2025
[19]

Curiel, E. (2019). The many definitions of a black hole. Nature Astronomy\/ 3\/ (1), 27--34

2019
[20]

Dawid, R. (2013). String Theory and the Scientific Method . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

2013
[21]

Dawid, R. (2019). The significance of non-empirical confirmation in fundamental physics. In R. Dardashti, R. Dawid, and K. Thebault (Eds.), Why Trust a Theory? Epistemology of Modern Physics , pp.\ 99--119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

2019
[22]

Dawid, R. (2022). Meta-empirical confirmation: Addressing three points of criticism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\/ 93 , 66--71

2022
[23]

scientific

Dawid, R. and C. McCoy (2023). Testability and viability: I s inflationary cosmology “scientific”? European Journal for Philosophy of Science\/ 13\/ (4), 51

2023
[24]

Donahue, M. K. (forthcoming). Is the theistic multiverse incoherent? A reply to M ichael A lmeida. Philosophia\/
[25]

Ellis, G. (2011). Does the multiverse really exist? Scientific American\/ 305\/ (2), 38--43

2011
[26]

Ellis, G. and J. Silk (2014). Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics. Nature\/ 516\/ (7531), 321--323

2014
[27]

Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers' Imprint\/ 1 , 1--30

2001
[28]

Freivogel, B. (2011). Making predictions in the multiverse . Class. Quant. Grav.\/ 28 , 204007

2011
[29]

Friederich, S. (2021). Multiverse Theories: A Philosophical Perspective . Cambridge University Press

2021
[30]

Glick, D. and B. Le Bihan (2024). Metaphysical indeterminacy in E verettian quantum mechanics. European journal for philosophy of science\/ 14\/ (1), 3

2024
[31]

Guth, A. H. (2007). Eternal inflation and its implications. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical\/ 40\/ (25), 6811

2007
[32]

Hacking, I. (1987). The inverse gambler's fallacy: The argument from design. T he anthropic principle applied to W heeler universes. Mind\/ 96\/ (383), 331--340

1987
[33]

Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray . Hachette UK

2018
[34]

Hubble, E. (1929). A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 15\/ (3), 168--173

1929
[35]

Huggett, N. (2017). Target space space. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 59 , 81--88

2017
[36]

Huggett, N. and C. W \"u thrich (2018). The (a) temporal emergence of spacetime. Philosophy of Science\/ 85\/ (5), 1190--1203

2018
[37]

Huggett, N. and C. W \"u thrich (2025). Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Theories of Gravity . Oxford: Oxford University Press

2025
[38]

Ijjas, A., P. J. Steinhardt, and A. Loeb (2013). Inflationary paradigm in trouble after planck2013. Physics Letters B\/ 723\/ (4-5), 261--266

2013
[39]

Hawthorne, and J

Isaacs, Y., J. Hawthorne, and J. Sanford Russell (2022). Multiple universes and self-locating evidence. Philosophical Review\/ 131\/ (3), 241--294

2022
[40]

Jow, D. L. and D. Scott (2020). Re-evaluating evidence for hawking points in the CMB . Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics\/ 2020\/ (03), 021

2020
[41]

Kortabarria, M. and J. Giannotti (2024). Scientific explanation as a guide to ground. Synthese\/ 203\/ (3), 73

2024
[42]

Kraay, K. J. (2010). Theism, possible worlds, and the multiverse. Philosophical Studies\/ 147 , 355--368

2010
[43]

Kuhn, T. S. (1957). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought , Volume 16. Harvard University Press

1957
[44]

Lam, V. (2007). The singular nature of spacetime. Philosophy of Science\/ 74\/ (5), 712--723

2007
[45]

Le Bihan, B. (2018). Priority monism beyond spacetime. Metaphysica\/ 19\/ (1), 95--111

2018
[46]

Le Bihan, B. (2020). String theory, loop quantum gravity and eternalism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science\/ 10\/ (2), 1--22

2020
[47]

Le Bihan, B. (2023). String theory for metaphysicians. Unpublished manuscript

2023
[48]

Le Bihan, B. (2024). The great loop: From conformal cyclic cosmology to aeon monism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science\/ , 1--16

2024
[49]

Margoni, and A

Le Bihan, B., E. Margoni, and A. Vieser (forthcoming). Possibility in physics. In H. Zwirn (Ed.), Quantum Physics and Cosmology . ISTE
[50]

Le Bihan, B. and J. Read (2018). Duality and ontology. Philosophy Compass\/ 13\/ (12), e12555

2018
[51]

Li, H. and B. Saad (2023). The multiverse theodicy meets population ethics. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy\/ 10

2023
[52]

Bonizzi, K

Lopez, M., P. Bonizzi, K. Driessens, G. Koekoek, J. de Vries, and R. Westra (2021). Searching for ring-like structures in the cosmic microwave background. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03990\/

2021 arXiv
[53]

Manson, N. A. (2020). The multiverse: What philosophers and theologians get wrong. Theology and Science\/ 18\/ (1), 31--45

2020
[54]

Manson, N. A. (2022). Cosmic fine-tuning, the multiverse hypothesis, and the inverse gambler's fallacy. Philosophy Compass\/ 17\/ (9), e12873

2022
[55]

this universe

Manson, N. A. and M. J. Thrush (2003). Fine-tuning, multiple universes, and the “this universe” objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly\/ 84\/ (1), 67--83

2003
[56]

McCoy, C. D. (2019). Epistemic justification and methodological luck in inflationary cosmology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\/ 70\/ (4), 1003--1028

2019
[57]

Meacham, C. J. G. (forthcoming). Fine-tuning, multiple universes, and self-locating beliefs. In D. Rubio and K. J. Kraay (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy and the Multiverse . Blackwell
[58]

Meissner, K. A. and R. Penrose (2025). The physics of conformal cyclic cosmology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.24263

2025 arXiv
[59]

Monton, B. (2010). Against multiverse theodicies. Philo\/ 13\/ (2), 113--135

2010
[60]

Papantonopoulos, E. (2002). Brane cosmology. In S. Cotsakis and E. Papantonopoulos (Eds.), Cosmological Crossroads: An Advanced Course in Mathematical, Physical and String Cosmology , pp.\ 458--477. Springer

2002
[61]

Penrose, R. (2006). Before the big bang: An outrageous new perspective and its implications for particle physics. In C. Prior (Ed.), Proceedings of EPAC , Edinburgh, June 26-30 2006, pp.\ 2759--2763. https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/e06/papers/thespa01.pdf

2006
[62]

Penrose, R. (2010). Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe . New York: Random House

2010
[63]

Penrose, R. (2014). On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 2: Conformal cyclic cosmology. Foundations of Physics\/ 44\/ (8), 873--890

2014
[64]

Psillos, S. (2011). Moving molecules above the scientific horizon: On P errin’s case for realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science\/ 42\/ (2), 339--363

2011
[65]

Read, J. and B. Le Bihan (2021). The landscape and the multiverse: What’s the problem? Synthese\/ 199\/ (3), 7749--7771

2021
[66]

Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In B. Hale and A. Hoffmann (Eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology , pp.\ 109--135. Oxford University Press

2010
[67]

Rubio, D. (2020). In defence of no best world. Australasian Journal of Philosophy\/ (4), 811--825

2020
[68]

Ruyant, Q. (2025). Indexicality, B ayesian background and self-location in fine-tuning arguments for the multiverse. No\^ u s\/ 59\/ (1), 140--159

2025
[69]

Saad, B. (2024). Fine-tuning should make us more confident that other universes exist. American Philosophical Quarterly\/ 61\/ (1), 29--44

2024
[70]

Barrett, A

Saunders, S., J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.) (2010). Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality . Oxford: Oxford University Press

2010
[71]

Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In R. Wasserman, D. Manley, and D. Chalmers (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology , pp.\ 347--383. Oxford University Press

2009
[72]

Smolin, L. (2009). The unique universe. Physics World\/ 22\/ (06), 21

2009
[73]

Steinhardt, P. J. and N. Turok (2002). Cosmic evolution in a cyclic universe. Physical Review D\/ 65\/ (12), 126003

2002
[74]

Susskind, L. (2005). The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design . Brown and Company: Little

2005
[75]

Tegmark, M. (2007). The multiverse hierarchy. In B. Carr (Ed.), Universe or Multiverse? , pp.\ 99--126. Cambridge University Press

2007
[76]

Unger, R. M. and L. Smolin (2015). The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time . Cambridge University Press

2015
[77]

van Fraassen, B. C. (2025). Theories, modelling, and empirical support. In R. M. Erdbeer, V. Hagenmeyer, and K. Stierstorfer (Eds.), Modelling the Energy Transition: Cultures, Visions, Narratives , pp.\ 15--39. Cham: Springer

2025
[78]

Wallace, D. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation . Oxford University Press

2012
[79]

Wallace, D. (2023). The sky is blue, and other reasons quantum mechanics is not underdetermined by evidence. European Journal for Philosophy of Science\/ 13\/ (4), 54

2023
[80]

White, R. (2003). Fine-tuning and multiple universes. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and Design , pp.\ 229--250. Routledge

2003
[81]

Wilson, A. (2020). The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism . Oxford University Press

2020
[82]

Wilson, A. (2021). Explanations of and in time. In C. Wüthrich, B. Le Bihan, and N. Huggett (Eds.), Philosophy Beyond Spacetime: Implications from Quantum Gravity , pp.\ 182--198. Oxford University Press

2021
[83]

Wilson, J. M. (2014). No work for a theory of grounding. Inquiry\/ 57\/ (5-6), 535--579

2014
[84]

Wolf, W. J. and J. Read (2025). Navigating permanent underdetermination in dark energy and inflationary cosmology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13521\/

2025
[85]

W \"u thrich, C. (2005). To quantize or not to quantize: Fact and folklore in quantum gravity. Philosophy of Science\/ 72\/ (5), 777--788

2005
[86]

W \"u thrich, C. (2020). When the actual world is not even possible. In D. Glick, G. Darby, and A. Marmodoro (Eds.), The Foundation of Reality , pp.\ 233--253. Oxford University Press

2020
[87]

W \"u thrich, C. (2024). The philosophy of causal set theory. In C. Bambi, L. Modesto, and I. Shapiro (Eds.), Handbook of Quantum Gravity , pp.\ 3003--3030. Springer

2024
[88]

Le Bihan, and N

Wüthrich, C., B. Le Bihan, and N. Huggett (Eds.) (2021). Philosophy Beyond Spacetime . Oxford University Press

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aguirre, A. and M. Tegmark (2011). Born in an infinite universe: A cosmological interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D\/ 84 , 105002

2011

[2] [2]

An, D., K. A. Meissner, P. Nurowski, and R. Penrose (2020). Apparent evidence for H awking points in the CMB sky. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 495\/ (3), 3403--3408

2020

[3] [3]

Aprile, E. and al. (2025). Challenging spontaneous quantum collapse with XENONnT . Arxiv.org/abs/2506.05507\/

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Ashtekar, A. and G. J. Galloway (2005). Some uniqueness results for dynamical horizons. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics\/ 9\/ (1), 1--30

2005

[5] [5]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2022). Composing spacetime. The Journal of Philosophy\/ 119\/ (1), 33--54

2022

[6] [6]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2023). Trouble on the horizon for presentism. Philosophers' Imprint\/ 23

2023

[7] [7]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2024). Causal theories of spacetime. No\^ u s\/ 58\/ (1), 202--224

2024

[8] [8]

Baron, S. and B. Le Bihan (2025). Causal set theory is (strongly) causal. Foundations of Physics\/ 55\/ (4), 1--35

2025