An “intelligent being who creates universes” seems possible rather than impossible to me. Assuming a multiverse, such an intelligent being actually exists somewhere.

Taking this further, an “intelligent being who creates universes which contain intelligent beings who also create universes” also seems possible rather than impossible to me. Assuming a multiverse, such an intelligent being actually exists somewhere.

If the above is true then over time the rate of universes being created by intelligent beings would grow exponentially.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the rate of universes randomly created by chance would not grow exponentially over time (or at least not as fast as those being created by intelligent beings).

After an infinite period of time it would seem that at any given moment there are way more universes being created by intelligent beings than by chance.

Would this mean that after an infinite period of time, at any given moment, any universe created would more likely be from an intelligent being rather than chance?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Swami Vishwananda, Eliran, Mark Andrews, Philip Klöcking Oct 8 '18 at 13:44

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Two questions: What is time? What is infinite +X? – Daniel Oct 4 '18 at 12:14
  • 1
    I made some edits to clarity (at least for myself). Please roll back or continue editing if I misrepresented you. Do you have a reference text (preferably online) that goes into more detail? This would help focus the question. Given your assumptions, I would say "yes" with the assumptions being that intelligent beings randomly appear initially and have the ability to create universes. They can now make choices to create more and not wait for randomness to create universes. They should dominate. However that is just my personal opinion and I would like to base this on a reference somewhere. – Frank Hubeny Oct 4 '18 at 12:25
  • 1
    Thanks @Frank I’ve edited the title slightly to show that this is specific to the multiverse – Gueda Oct 4 '18 at 16:16
  • 2
    If beings that can create universes are possible "then over time the rate of universes being created by intelligent beings would grow exponentially"? How does that follow? Just because they can does not mean they will, and even if they do on what basis do we judge at what rate they'll do it? "After an infinite period of time"? How would that happen, even aside from the fact that time is relative, and disconnected across different universes? It seems to me that your question is based on faulty reasoning. – Conifold Oct 4 '18 at 18:00
  • 1
    How about if it was a lab technician with a particle accelerator in an uberverse, unaware of his/her creation (and completely uninterested in worship since it won't weigh in on winning the uberverse's equivalent of a Nobel prize), and not a first premeditated move by a supernatural entity? In this case the universe(s), created by an intelligence, would be the result of experimentation and depending on the (random, since no premeditation in the creation) set of cosmological constants and laws of physics for the particular universes, they may or may not be capable to evolve intelligence. – Codosaur Oct 4 '18 at 20:28

The following question assumes a multiverse of universes, infinite time and the ability of intelligent agents to create entire other universes:

Would this mean that after an infinite period of time, at any given moment, any universe created would more likely be from an intelligent being rather than chance?

If one can answer "yes" to a similar scenario, one should be able to answer "yes" to this scenario.

A similar scenario would be that created by Nick Bostrum in his simulation theory. Bostrum concludes the following (page 14):

A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human‐level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor‐simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor‐simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor‐simulation.

Assuming we are now living in a simulation created by intelligent beings in a posthuman civilization, or, indeed, in some other kind of universe created by an intelligent agency of some sort, then "at any given moment, any universe created would more likely be from an intelligent being rather than chance".


Bostrom, N. (2003). Are we living in a computer simulation?. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243-255. https://www.simulation-argument.com/

  • Proposition (4): The enormous computing power of a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization is inadequate to run ancestor simulations. I've read that there are phenomena in the Universe that can't be efficiently computed, and there are limits to computation. It seems intuitively unlikely that a computer that is a tiny part of the Universe could simulate a Universe that can have such a computer in it. – David Thornley Oct 4 '18 at 21:45
  • @DavidThornley Just so there is no confusion I don't support Bostrum's belief in simulations, but his argument would be a way for the OP to get the results the OP desires. I agree with you that there are phenomena in the universe that can't be efficiently computed. – Frank Hubeny Oct 5 '18 at 0:23
  • @DavidThornley A computer could simulate a universe, but that simulated universe MUST be simpler/smaller than the parent universe. So given a significantly "large" enough top-level universe, you would be able to go some finite number of levels deep before the simulation becomes too simple to in turn house its own child simulation. – Harabeck Oct 5 '18 at 20:14
  • @FrankHubeny Yup. I was explicitly pointing out that Bostrum missed a possibility. – David Thornley Oct 14 '18 at 19:07

There are flaws in your logic.

Assuming a multiverse, such an intelligent being actually exists somewhere

This only follows if you define a multiverse as containing every combination of possible universes. That's not, for example, how multiverses that physicists plays with work. They only have universes for every possible outcome of an interaction.

But assuming your form of multiverse then

Let's assume [...] that the rate of universes randomly created by chance would not grow exponentially over time

is definitely wrong. They absolutely grow exponentially and must be growing faster than universe creators as there are vastly more possible universes without universe creators than with.

On the plus side, if you came up with a sufficiently cunning definition of a multiverse that only expanded exponentially in universe creators then you don't need infinite time. any universe created would more likely be from an intelligent being would be reached after a sufficient long, but nowhere near infinite time.

  • @Gueda if your argument relies on a multiverse definitely having universe creators, you must be relying on it containing all possible universes. If you do that then it must contain all possible universes without universe creators and there are vastly more of those. Unless you restrict your definition of multiverse in some way that allows it to have universe creators without requiring all possible universes, your argument is fundamentally flawed. – Alex Oct 4 '18 at 18:12
  • thanks very much. The part I didn’t understand was that you said the rate of chance universes would grow exponentially. I would have thought the rate would stay fixed or at least be slower than the rate of those created by intelligent beings – Gueda Oct 4 '18 at 18:17

There are two Multiverse hypotheses that seem plausible to me. One is the String Landscape Model and the other is the Many Worlds model.

The former has (according to Brian Greene) about 10500 possible universes (there are approximately 1080 subatomic particles in the Universe we live in). If you think a little like Max Tegmark that anything that is mathematically possible actually exists somewhere, sometime, somehow, then each of these 10500 possible universes are a solution to the differential equations that are what String Theory or M Theory are made of.

The other (Many Worlds) is speculated to have about 101010000000 possible universes. It's based on the notion that if one were to perform Schrodingers Cat experiment, the timeline will somehow split and there will be one universe with the cat alive and another with the cat dead. Every time an electron has a binary probabilistic "choice" of which way to go (a quantum fluctuation) two universes then exist, one where the electron turns left, the other where the electron turns right. Essentially, every story that can possibly be told occurs in one of those universes. In one, I am President of the United States. In another, I assassinate the President of the United States. In still another, I am the president and I am assassinated. Perhaps you will find a teapot in orbit in one of those universes. And in another an Invisible Pink Unicorn. And in another a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There are other multiverse hypotheses that have very advanced alien life designing and creating universes. Those seem even sillier than the two I mention above.

The main reason why this Multiverse thing gets some proponents and detractors is because of the Does God Exist debate. One (rather strong, in my opinion) argument for the existence of God is the Teleological Argument sorta classically posited by William Paley. A more modern argument is made by pointing out that several of ca. 26 dimensionless fundamental constants of the Universe have to take on values very close to the values they do take on just so that the Universe can cook up matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, and eventually life as we know it. However, using the Weak Anthropic Principle (which is a tautology, so it has to be true, albeit sorta an empty truth) and the notion of the Multiverse, a case can be made using selection bias or survivor bias to explain away any sense of remarkability of the ostensible appearance of fine-tuning.

In order to make the case that it is unremarkable that one has been dealt a Royal Flush one must make the case that millions or billions of poker hands have been dealt and only in the case of a Royal Flush will there be anyone around to notice. All other hands are unlucky enough that no life will appear to notice what hand was dealt. But this selection bias case only makes sense when there is a statistical population of universes to select from. Only in such a universe where fundamental constants and initial conditions come out "just right" will there be any beings that have evolved to the point to be asking these questions of "How the heck were we able to come to be in an otherwise life-unfriendly universe?" It's the question that Fred Hoyle was thinking about when he conceived of his 747 Junkyard tornado notion.

The Multiverse hypothesis has as much evidence supporting it as is there evidence for the existence of God. Really, no more. Whether aliens created our universe or if it's just one of the zillion created by some natural universe creating mechanism or if God created our universe, none of these are falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Your speculation or your faith belief, is as good as mine.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.