Listen to the 7-minute podcast about the subject matter if time is of the essence. A bit of irreverent topic for some no doubt, but as a believer in the Divine Nature of Being I found this to be a fascinating topic to explore. Recent discoveries from the James Webb Telescope are giving even more credence to simulation, multiverse and emerging quantum theories so who knows where the truth lies? – Site Publisher – Kevin Parker
Introduction: From Clockmaker to Coder
In 1802, the English clergyman William Paley proposed a powerful metaphor that would shape theological debate for centuries. Walking across a heath, he argued, one might stumble upon a stone and reasonably conclude it had lain there forever. But if one were to find a watch, with its intricate gears and springs all working in concert to measure time, the only rational conclusion would be that “an artificer or artificers…who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer” must have existed.¹ This watchmaker analogy, a cornerstone of natural theology, framed the universe as a complex mechanism whose apparent design necessitated a grand, intelligent designer.1 For the Industrial Age, God was the ultimate mechanical engineer.
Two centuries later, the defining technology is not the clockwork machine but the computer. Consequently, the metaphor for a creator has evolved. The question is no longer whether God is a watchmaker, but whether God is a computer programmer. This is not merely a semantic update; it is a profound reframing of one of humanity’s oldest questions, driven by startling developments in theoretical physics, philosophy, and computer science. The universe, to a growing number of thinkers, appears less like a machine of cogs and wheels and more like an elegant piece of software. Its fundamental laws are expressed in the language of mathematics, its particles behave like bits of information, and its very existence seems predicated on a set of finely tuned parameters that look suspiciously like programmed inputs.
This essay explores the modern argument from design through the lens of the “Programmer God.” It delves into two of the most provocative ideas in contemporary science: the Simulation Hypothesis, which posits that our reality is an artificial construct, and the Multiverse theories, which suggest our universe is but one among a near-infinite ensemble. By examining these concepts, we can analyze the attributes of this new, digital deity. Is the programmer a “teenage hacker in the next universe up,” as philosopher David Chalmers has playfully suggested, or a more profound architect of reality?²
While the Programmer God seems a product of the 21st century, this inquiry will show it is deeply rooted in ancient philosophical traditions, from the mathematical mysticism of the Pythagoreans to the classical problem of evil.4 By exploring the logic, evidence, and profound implications of these theories, we can map the contours of this new conception of creation. The investigation reveals that whether God is a watchmaker or a coder, the ultimate questions of purpose, reality, and origins remain as elusive as ever, pushing the mystery back one recursive step: if our world is a program, who wrote the code for the programmer’s world?
Table 1: A Comparison of Design Metaphors: The Watchmaker vs. The Programmer
| Feature | The Watchmaker God (19th Century) | The Programmer God (21st Century) |
| Nature of Creator | A single, intelligent, metaphysical, transcendent, and likely benevolent being (God). | A physical entity (or AI) within a “base reality,” not necessarily singular, benevolent, or omnipotent. |
| Nature of Creation | A single, physical, mechanical universe. A “clockwork” system. | An informational, digital reality (a simulation). Potentially one of many nested realities. |
| Mechanism | Direct design and assembly of physical parts. Creation ex nihilo or from pre-existing matter. | Writing code, setting parameters, and running a program on a computational substrate. |
| Evidence | Apparent design, complexity, and purpose in biological organisms and celestial mechanics (teleology). | Fine-tuning of physical constants, the mathematical nature of reality, “glitches,” probabilistic arguments. |
| Key Objection | Darwinian evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for biological complexity (The Blind Watchmaker). | Computational resource limits, unfalsifiability, the problem of simulator evil. |
| Theological Status | A form of classical theism or deism. | A form of “natural” or “physical” theism; a potential bridge between theism and atheism. |
Part I: The Ghost in the Machine – The Simulation Hypothesis
The most direct interpretation of a “Programmer God” comes from the Simulation Hypothesis, an idea that has migrated from science fiction to serious academic philosophy. It posits that our entire perceived reality, from the grandest galaxies to the most fleeting thoughts, is an artificial simulation running on a vast computer. This framework demotes the creator from a transcendent, metaphysical being to a physical, albeit vastly powerful, entity. Such a shift has profound consequences, transforming theological questions about divine nature, morality, and purpose into problems of speculative computer science and cosmic forensics.
The Trilemma: Are We Living in an Ancestor Simulation?
The Simulation Hypothesis was given its most rigorous philosophical formulation by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom in his seminal 2003 paper, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”³.6 Bostrom’s argument is not a direct claim that we are in a simulation, but a probabilistic argument that presents a stark trilemma.
The argument rests on two key assumptions. The first is “substrate-independence,” a concept from the philosophy of mind which holds that consciousness is not uniquely tied to our biological brains but is a process of information handling that could, in principle, be instantiated on other physical substrates, such as silicon circuits.7 If consciousness is a pattern and not a substance, then a sufficiently detailed simulation of a brain would be just as conscious as the original. The second assumption is that a technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would possess enough computing power to run vast numbers of “ancestor simulations”—high-fidelity simulations of their own evolutionary or historical past.6
Given these premises, Bostrom argues that at least one of the following three propositions must be true:
- The Extinction Proposition: The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage of technological maturity.
- The Disinterest Proposition: Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
- The Simulation Proposition: We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.6
The logic is compellingly simple. If propositions (1) and (2) are false, it means that posthuman civilizations will exist and they will be interested in running many ancestor simulations. If this is the case, the total number of simulated minds, or “sims,” living in these simulations would eventually come to vastly outnumber the “real” biological minds in the original, “base” reality.9 Applying a principle of indifference—that we have no specific evidence to believe we are in the minority group (originals) versus the vast majority (sims)—the statistical probability is that any given conscious observer, such as ourselves, is a simulation.³
Bostrom’s focus on ancestor simulations is a critical and often overlooked detail.6 This is not an argument about any generic video game. The specificity provides a plausible motive for the simulation: scientific curiosity, historical research, or perhaps even a form of digital archaeology. It also implies that the laws of physics in the simulators’ base reality are likely similar, if not identical, to our own, as they would be necessary to accurately replicate their own past. This constraint makes the nature of the programmer and the purpose of our world’s suffering—a topic explored later—far more pointed questions.
The Nature of the Programmer
If we accept the possibility that we are living in a simulation, the identity of the creator becomes a central question. The “God” that emerges from this hypothesis is a fundamentally different entity from the God of classical theology. Instead of a transcendent, omnipotent, and omniscient being existing outside of space and time, the simulator is a physical entity existing within a higher-level reality.
Philosopher David Chalmers has influentially and playfully framed this entity as a “teenage hacker in the next universe up,” a depiction that captures the creator’s potential fallibility, whimsy, and limited nature.11 This Programmer God is not necessarily a single being; it could be an advanced artificial intelligence, a collective of scientists, or, in the case of an ancestor simulation, our own distant descendants.13 The key distinction is that this creator is a physicist, not a metaphysician. They operate within a set of physical laws, even if those laws are different from ours.
While not omnipotent in the absolute sense, the programmer would possess powers that are god-like relative to us. They would be the creator of our universe, the author of its physical laws (the “source code”), and could potentially intervene in its operation, much like a developer releasing a patch or an administrator interacting with users in a virtual world.12 They could, in theory, pause, rewind, or terminate the simulation at any moment.
This reconceptualization offers a potential bridge between theism and atheism, a point Chalmers himself has argued.11 A traditional atheist rejects a supernatural creator, while a theist accepts one. The Simulation Hypothesis provides a third path: a natural creator. This entity is responsible for our entire reality but is itself a product of a physical, natural world. For inhabitants of the simulation, this creator is their God; for inhabitants of the base reality, the creator is just another person (or AI). The debate shifts from faith versus science to a question of nested physical realities, a hierarchy of worlds where one level’s physics is another’s theology.
The Problem of Simulator Evil
The existence of suffering, pain, and injustice has always posed the most formidable challenge to belief in an all-powerful and all-good God. This “problem of evil” is not solved by the Simulation Hypothesis; it is merely reframed. Epicurus’s ancient riddle—”Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able, but not willing? whence then is evil?”—applies just as forcefully to a cosmic programmer.4
If our world is a simulation, the immense suffering it contains demands an explanation regarding the programmer’s motives. Various “simulator theodicies” have been proposed to justify this state of affairs.17 Perhaps suffering is a necessary variable in a scientific experiment, an unavoidable part of accurately modeling a complex system. Perhaps the simulation is a form of entertainment for its creators, in which case they are morally monstrous. It is also possible that the programmers are not actively malevolent but simply negligent, having initiated the simulation and then walked away, unaware of the conscious suffering unfolding within it.17
The problem becomes especially acute if we are in one of Bostrom’s ancestor simulations. In this scenario, our simulators are our own descendants, who are knowingly and deliberately recreating the horrors of their own past—wars, genocides, plagues, and personal tragedies—for some purpose.17 Philosopher and historian Richard Carrier argues that this act would be so “irredeemably evil” that it serves as a powerful argument against the Disinterest Proposition in Bostrom’s trilemma; any ethically advanced civilization, he contends, would find such an undertaking morally repugnant and would choose not to run such simulations.19
This shifts the problem of evil from a question of the creator’s character to one of the program’s purpose. In classical theodicy, the struggle is to reconcile suffering with a God presumed to be omnibenevolent. In “sim-theodicy,” benevolence is not a given attribute. The central question becomes: what is this simulation for? If its function is scientific, suffering might be a regrettable but necessary data point. If it is for entertainment or, worse, a digital prison, then our suffering is a core feature, not a bug. The debate moves from moral philosophy to a kind of cosmic forensics, where we must deduce the program’s function from the often brutal features of our simulated world.
Searching for the Seams: Criticisms and Counterarguments
Despite its philosophical allure, the Simulation Hypothesis faces formidable scientific and logical challenges. The most significant objections are not about the logic of Bostrom’s trilemma but about the physical feasibility of its premises.
One major hurdle is the sheer computational power required. Physicists have argued that simulating our universe, particularly at the quantum level, would require a computer more complex and containing more information than the universe itself.19 According to the laws of computation, a simulation must necessarily be less complex than the system running it. This suggests that a universe like ours could not be simulated from within a universe like ours, leading to a regress of ever-more-complex parent universes.19
Furthermore, the hypothesis is often criticized for being unscientific because it may be inherently unfalsifiable.19 Any evidence we find that is consistent with physical laws can be interpreted as part of a perfect simulation, while any lack of evidence for the simulation (such as not finding the “source code”) can be explained away as the programmers being exceptionally good at hiding their work. A theory that cannot be proven false is often considered pseudoscience. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder argues that the hypothesis makes enormous, unproven assumptions about the nature of computation and its ability to reproduce the known laws of physics, particularly the symmetries of general relativity, which are notoriously difficult to model on a discrete, grid-like computational substrate.22 To date, searches for such a discrete or “pixelated” structure to spacetime have come up empty-handed.
In stark contrast to the lack of scientific evidence, a rich vein of popular, anecdotal “evidence” persists in the form of “glitches in the matrix.” These are stories of strange coincidences, uncanny déjà vu, objects that seem to duplicate or vanish, or moments where reality feels thin or scripted.24 While compelling on a personal level, these accounts function as a modern folklore, reflecting a human desire to find patterns and meaning in the mundane, rather than as verifiable data.
Ultimately, the most potent criticisms of the Simulation Hypothesis are physical. The argument is not simply that simulating a universe would be difficult, but that the universe we observe—continuous, relativistic, and quantum mechanical—does not look like a simulation running on any kind of computer we can currently conceive. This leads to a different set of possibilities: what if the “computer” is not an external machine but is the very fabric of reality itself?
Part II: The Library of Babel – The Multiverse as a Cosmic Operating System
While the Simulation Hypothesis imagines a reality programmed from the top down by an external intelligence, a competing set of theories in physics suggests that immense variety can be generated from the bottom up through natural processes. These “multiverse” theories propose that our universe is just one of many, existing within a vast ensemble of other realities. In the context of the “Programmer God” debate, the multiverse acts as a powerful, non-theistic alternative, offering a compelling explanation for the apparent design of our cosmos without invoking a designer. It replaces the single, intelligent Programmer with an infinite, unintelligent “universe-generating machine.”
Quantum Branching: Everett’s Many Worlds
The first major multiverse model arises directly from the foundational mathematics of quantum mechanics. In the standard “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum theory, a particle like an electron exists in a superposition of multiple possible states simultaneously. When a measurement is made, this cloud of possibilities mysteriously “collapses” into a single, definite outcome. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett in 1957, offers a radical and elegant solution: the wave function never collapses.30
Instead, Everett proposed that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement is physically realized, each in its own separate, parallel universe.31 When a scientist measures an electron’s spin, the universe splits. In one universe, the spin is “up”; in another, it is “down.” Both worlds are equally real, but they can no longer interact with each other. Reality is thus a constantly branching tree of timelines, with every quantum event creating new branches.31 As physicist Bryce DeWitt, who popularized the theory, put it, “Every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies”.33
This is a “bottom-up” multiverse. It is not planned or programmed; it is an inevitable consequence of the universe obeying the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics as described by the Schrödinger equation.31 The staggering number of parallel worlds is an emergent property of the physical laws themselves. In this view, there is no external programmer making choices; rather, the universe’s own operating system dictates that all choices are made, each in a different world.
The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory’s Infinite Universes
A second, distinct multiverse model emerges from string theory, a leading candidate for a “theory of everything” that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity.34 String theory posits that the fundamental constituents of reality are not point-like particles but minuscule, one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy. Different vibrational patterns of these strings give rise to all the different particles and forces we observe.34 The theory requires the existence of extra spatial dimensions—typically six or seven beyond our familiar three—that are curled up into complex, microscopic shapes.35
The crucial insight is that there is an enormous number of ways these extra dimensions can be curled up. Estimates suggest there could be as many as 10⁵⁰⁰ different stable configurations, or “false vacua”.36 Each of these vacua corresponds to a potential pocket universe with its own unique set of physical laws, constants, and particle types.35 This vast array of possible universes is known as the “String Theory Landscape”.35 It is analogous to a cosmic library containing books describing every conceivable set of physical rules.39 The theory of cosmic inflation, a period of exponential expansion in the early universe, provides the mechanism for “populating” this landscape, spinning off actual universes from this immense menu of possibilities.37
This is a “top-down” multiverse of possibilities. Unlike the constant branching of MWI, the String Theory Landscape is a pre-existing, static space of potential cosmic blueprints defined by the theory’s underlying equations. It offers a different kind of cosmic plurality, one based on a vast diversity of physical laws rather than a branching of historical outcomes.
An Escape from Design? The Anthropic Principle
Both of these multiverse models provide a powerful naturalistic explanation for one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a designer: the fine-tuning of our universe. Physicists have noted that a number of fundamental physical constants—such as the strength of gravity, the mass of the electron, and the value of the cosmological constant (the energy of empty space)—appear to be exquisitely calibrated for the existence of complex life.40 If the strength of the strong nuclear force were different by even a small fraction, for example, stars would be unable to produce the carbon and oxygen necessary for life as we know it.42 The cosmological constant is fine-tuned to a staggering degree, estimated at one part in 10¹²⁰; a slightly larger value would have caused the universe to fly apart too quickly for galaxies to form.43
To a proponent of design, this looks like overwhelming evidence that the “dials” of the universe were set with deliberate intent. The multiverse, however, offers an escape. If there exists a vast or infinite number of universes—either through quantum branching or the String Theory Landscape—each with different physical constants, then it is no longer surprising that at least one, by sheer statistical chance, would happen to have the right combination for life to emerge.37
This explanation relies on the “anthropic principle,” which states that we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that is hospitable to our existence, because we could not be here to observe it otherwise.40 It is a form of observation selection effect. The watchmaker argument gains its force from the improbability of finding a single, complex watch on a heath by chance. The multiverse proponent responds by positing the existence of a vast, cosmic factory that produces every possible kind of universe, most of them broken, lifeless, and unobserved. Our existence is therefore not a miracle of design but a statistical inevitability—we simply happen to live in one of the rare universes where observers could evolve. In this way, the multiverse acts as a “brute force” solution to the design problem, effectively rendering the Programmer God redundant.
Part III: Synthesis – Programming a Multiverse
Rather than viewing the Simulation Hypothesis and Multiverse theories as mutually exclusive competitors, it is more fruitful to explore how they might be synthesized. Combining these frameworks elevates the “Programmer God” metaphor from a coder of a single, isolated reality to a “meta-designer” of the entire cosmic operating system. This grander vision paradoxically brings modern physics into conversation with some of the most ancient forms of mathematical and mystical philosophy, suggesting that the ultimate nature of reality may be informational in a way that transcends simple computation.
Nested Realities: Simulations within the Multiverse
The Simulation Hypothesis and Multiverse theories are not only compatible; they may even be mutually reinforcing. One of the most significant criticisms of the simulation argument is the problem of computational resources: where would a computer powerful enough to simulate an entire universe come from?.19 The String Theory Landscape provides a potential answer. If our universe is a simulation, it could be running on hardware located in a parent universe with different, more expansive physical laws that permit far greater computational capacity.35 The multiverse, in this scenario, becomes the ultimate server farm.
Furthermore, a multiverse vastly increases the number of planets where life could evolve and where civilizations could reach the “posthuman” stage that Bostrom’s argument requires. This could strengthen the probability of his third proposition—that we are in a simulation—by dramatically increasing the number of potential simulators.
This synthesis, however, leads to a dizzying philosophical problem: an infinite regress. If our universe is a simulation running inside a parent universe from the String Theory Landscape, what is to prevent that parent universe from also being a simulation created by an even higher-order reality? This “turtles all the way down” scenario means the Programmer God is no longer the ultimate creator but merely one link in a potentially infinite chain of simulators. The ultimate mystery of origins is not solved but is merely displaced to an ever-receding “base reality” that remains fundamentally unknowable.
God as the Architect of the Landscape
A more profound synthesis elevates the programmer metaphor. Instead of an engineer coding a single world, “God” could be the intelligence that designed the fundamental mathematical structure of the multiverse itself. This idea has deep historical roots. Long before the digital age, the ancient Greek school of Pythagoreanism held that reality was mathematical at its core. They believed that numbers were the elements of all being and that the entire universe was composed of harmony and numerical ratios.5 The Pythagorean motto, “all things are number,” is the ancient precursor to the modern computational idea of “it from bit,” which posits that information is the fundamental stuff of reality.
Modern physicists like Max Tegmark have revived this idea, proposing that our physical universe is a mathematical structure, not just something that is described by mathematics.12 In this context, the Programmer God is not a coder of our specific world but the grand architect of the String Theory Landscape—the author of the “meta-verse” or the “operating system” from which all possible physical laws and universes emerge.12 This entity programs the “laws of the game” that govern the entire cosmic ensemble.
This re-imagined Programmer God begins to look less like a fallible hacker and more like the God of classical deism or the pantheistic God of Spinoza. A being that designs the fundamental mathematical laws of a multiverse is not meddling in one reality. This creator establishes the eternal, immutable principles that govern the whole system and then allows it to unfold. This is akin to the deistic Clockmaker God who builds the universal machine and then lets it run without interference. The “Programmer” metaphor, when applied to the multiverse, paradoxically circles back to a more abstract, transcendent, and less anthropomorphic conception of the divine.
Consciousness as the Code
A final, more speculative synthesis offers a radical alternative. Both the Simulation Hypothesis and the multiverse models discussed thus far are fundamentally materialistic; they assume that reality is composed of physical stuff, whether it be particles, strings, or bits of information on a hard drive. But what if the program is not computational, but experiential?
Ideas from the fringes of quantum physics, sometimes termed “quantum activism,” propose that consciousness is not an emergent property of matter (“upward causation”) but is instead a fundamental aspect of reality that shapes the material world (“downward causation”).49 This view draws on the “observer effect” in quantum mechanics, where the act of observation appears to collapse a wave of probabilities into a single, actual event.⁴ If consciousness is, as physicist Amit Goswami suggests, “the ground of all being,” then the universe is not so much a computer program as it is a self-organizing thought or a collective act of observation.⁵
In this framework, the simulation is not running on silicon but on consciousness itself. The “Programmer” is not an external entity coding reality from the outside, but is the collective consciousness of all observers participating in its creation. This concept resonates with mystical traditions, both Eastern and Western, that speak of a universal consciousness (like the Hindu concept of Brahman) or the interconnectedness of all beings (like the Buddhist concept of “interbeing”).49 This provides a non-theistic but deeply spiritual alternative to the Programmer God, a vision in which we are not merely characters in the program but are, in some profound sense, co-authors of the code.
Conclusion: The Unknowable Coder
The journey from Paley’s watchmaker to the cosmic programmer charts the evolution of humanity’s metaphors for creation, reflecting our own technological and scientific progress. The “Programmer God” is a uniquely powerful and intellectually stimulating metaphor for the 21st century because it captures a growing intuition—supported by fields from quantum physics to information theory—that reality is, at its deepest level, informational.
The inquiry reveals a spectrum of possible creators. At one end lies the fallible, physical simulator of Bostrom’s hypothesis—a “hacker in the next universe up” whose existence demystifies the divine but sharpens the problem of evil. At the other end lies the grand architect of the multiverse, a being who programs the very laws of physics for an entire landscape of universes, a concept that echoes the abstract, deistic God of the Enlightenment. And in the most speculative reaches, the programmer dissolves entirely into the fabric of consciousness itself, making us all participants in the act of creation.
Yet, for all its modern sophistication, the Programmer God hypothesis does not ultimately solve the mystery of origins. It merely displaces it. If our universe was programmed, who or what programmed the programmer’s universe? If we live in a simulation, the question of the “base reality” remains. If our multiverse springs from a deeper mathematical structure, the question of who or what authored that structure persists. We are left with an infinite regress, an echo of Aristotle’s search for the “unmoved mover.” The metaphor updates the language of our oldest questions, but it does not, and perhaps cannot, escape the fundamental limits of metaphysical inquiry. We are left staring at the screen, wondering about the nature of the unknowable coder.
Notes
¹ William Paley, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802), as cited in multiple sources analyzing the watchmaker analogy.1
² David Chalmers, as cited in multiple sources discussing his views on the simulation hypothesis.11
³ Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?,” Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243–255.6
⁴ Amit Goswami, “Consciousness-Based Science and Spirituality for World Transformation,” in The Global Heart Awakens, ed. Anodea Judith (San Rafael, CA: Shift Books, 2013), 231-245.49
⁵ Amit Goswami, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1993), 102.49
Bibliography
Bostrom, Nick. “Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?.” Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243–255.
Carrier, Richard. “We Are Probably Not in a Simulation.” Richard Carrier Blogs, January 18, 2024. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/26755.
Chalmers, David. “The Matrix as Metaphysics.” In Philosophers Explore the Matrix, edited by Christopher Grau, 157-158. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Goswami, Amit. “Consciousness-Based Science and Spirituality for World Transformation.” In The Global Heart Awakens: Humanity’s Rite of Passage from the Love of Power to the Power of Love, edited by Anodea Judith, 231-245. San Rafael, CA: Shift Books, 2013.
———. The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1993.
Hossenfelder, Sabine. “Why the simulation hypothesis is pseudoscience.” Big Think, March 17, 2023. https://bigthink.com/thinking/why-the-simulation-hypothesis-is-pseudoscience/.
Lewis, & Barnes. A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. As referenced in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Fine-Tuning.”
Paley, William. Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. 1802.
Susskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. New York: Knopf, 2014.
Vaidman, Lev. “Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/qm-manyworlds/.
