Simon Friederich, Natalja Deng, and Erik Curiel participate in a roundtable discussion addressing questions around probability, fine-tuning, and arguments for a multiverse or deity. Simon Friederich, Natalja Deng, and Erik Curiel participate in a roundtable discussion addressing questions around probability, fine-tuning, and arguments for a multiverse or deity. This discussion was conducted at the Lindeman Lecture Theatre, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, on October 6, 2016.

Erik Curiel explains the challenges in making assessments of probability by making assumptions about the space of universes--or cosmological models--that our theories allow. Erik Curiel (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy) explains the difficulty of making various concepts of and relating to probability precise, rigorous and physically significant when attempting to apply them in reasoning about objects (e.g., spacetimes) living in infinite-dimensional spaces, working through several examples from cosmology. He concludes that most standard forms of argument used in cosmology to estimate the likelihood of the occurrence of various properties or behaviors of spacetimes have serious mathematical, physical and conceptual problems. This lecture was conducted at the Lindeman Lecture Theatre, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, on October 6, 2016.

Natalja Deng discusses whether the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life can be evidence for a divine creator. Natalja Deng (Yonsei University) comments on two responses to the fine-tuning argument for god, namely one based on dismissive priors , and one based on a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ style objection by theistic design theorists. She suggests that the latter response amounts to a practice-based constraint on theistic conceptions, and that often, theistic conceptions that meet this constraint are vulnerable to the former objection. This lecture was conducted at the Lindeman Lecture Theatre, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, on October 6, 2016.

Simon Friederich reviews the challenges that arise in using empirical evidence that the universe is tuned for life to evaluate multiverse hypothesis. Simon Friederich (University of Groningen) offers a panoramic view of intricacies and challenges that arise in the assessment of empirical evidence concerning multiverse theories and the relevance of fine-tuning for life. This lecture was conducted at the Lindeman Lecture Theatre, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, on October 6, 2016.

Erik Curiel and Simon Friederich hash out the problems we encounter when we look for evidence of a multiverse. How do we gain evidence for a multiverse? In the final part of their discussion, Erik Curiel and Simon Friederich hash out the problems we encounter when we try to use our observations as evidence for the multiverse. This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on October 6, 2017.

How similar is the fine-tuning of our universe to probabilistic reasoning we use and understand? Simon Friederich and Erik Curiel go through a series of examples. In the third part of their discussion, Simon Friederich and Erik Curiel go over the connection between a widely recognized fallacy--the Gambler’s Fallacy--and the fine-tuning argument. How similar is the fine-tuning argument for the multiverse to common ways of reasoning from observations to likelihoods? This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on October 6, 2017.

Erik Curiel and Simon Friederich discuss how reasoning in cosmology sometimes conflates topological stability with probability, and why that might be wrong. In the second part of their discussion, Erik Curiel and Simon Friederich talk about the connection between stability arguments, which are popular in discussions of fine-tuning, and probability. Erik raises a problem for a common form of reasoning in cosmology. This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on October 6, 2017.

Simon Friederich and Erik Curiel discuss the problems fine-tuning arguments raise for our understanding of probability. In the first part of their discussion, Simon Friederich and Erik Curiel outline the fine-tuning argument and discuss the problems it raises for our understanding of probability. This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on October 6, 2017.

In the fourth part of their discussion, Pedro Ferreira and Jerome Martin conjecture about the future of inflation. They talk about the potential for new evidence for and against the theory, and the variety of new probes into our cosmological environment. This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on March 15, 2017.

In the third part of their discussion, Pedro Ferreira and Jerome Martin talk about whether one should look for a deeper physical theory when one’s current theory is well-supported by observation. They discuss the rise of inflationary theory, its alternatives, and our expectations for future physics. This discussion was conducted at the University of Oxford on March 15, 2017.