0.00000000001%

 

I'm gonna get into this in greater detail later 

but for today?

I  just wanna point out one thing.

5 “what ifs” that would have changed cosmic history

"What’s remarkable is when we consider how perfectly balanced these two quantities must have been."

(I'll get to exactly what those "two quantities" are later on 

when I do a piece on the entire article.) 

 "Today, the Universe has a density of about 1 proton per cubic meter of space. But early on, it had a density that was more like quintillions of kilograms per cubic centimeter of space. 

If you would have 

increased 

or 

decreased 

that density 

by just 

0.00000000001%, 

the Universe would have:

recollapsed on itself, 

ending in a Big Crunch after less than 1 second, 

in the case of an increase,

or expanded so quickly 

that no protons and electrons would ever have found one another

 to form even a single atom in the Universe, in the case of a decrease.

This incredible balance, 

along with the need for it, 

highlights 

just how precarious our existence in this Universe is."

(Or?

Some might say:

"This incredible balance, 

along with the need for it, 

highlights the intelligence 

behind the universe's creation."

There's 

multiple, 

some would say 30 or so

"Initial conditions"

"Constants"

"Laws of nature"

"Brute facts"

Which have to be 

just perfect:

"increased 

or decreased 

that density 

by just 0.00000000001%"

mind you.

I dont know what the tolerances 

for all 30 of the

"Initial conditions"

"Constants"

"Laws of nature"

"Brute facts"

are.

But if they all had to be within:

"0.00000000001%" 

in order to work?

Then 

Martin Rees

statement:

"How do we know just how atypical our universe is? 

To answer that we need to work out the probabilities of each combination of constants. 

And that’s a can of worms that we can’t yet open—it will have to await huge theoretical advances."

sure makes a lot of sense.

What they want you to believe is 

(I know, strawman :-)

"We are only here 

because every possible combination
of all those constants 

exist somewhere."

(Even though there is absolutely no reason 

to believe there is another universe but ours BTW, 

but I digress)

Imagine all those balls are all universes.

And they all stretch in every direction for 

just as far as you can possibly see.

In that situation?

Ours would be the blue one circled.

That is your various multiverse theory(s) in a nutshell.

Now I remind you:

A Plausible 

argument would need to be:

 "seeming reasonable or probable."

How

"reasonable or probable"

Does:

Really Seem to you?

I'd go with God created it if I was you.

He wanted to share it 

with his crowning creation, 

Mankind.

Matter is primary.

Without it?

 There is no need for 

space, 

time 

or the energy needed

 to tie them all four together.

It shows the uncreated creators intent.

A few side notes:

The HCPL is having it shipped here via the interlibrary loan program so thx to them for that.

Also?

My google search for:

"5 “what ifs” 

that would have changed cosmic history"

Did not include that article in the list of results.

Even after adding "Big think" to the query.

Nothing like knowing you're being monitored. That has never happened before. I had to go to the Big Think website and search for the article there.

In Sum then:

To know what we now know 

about universe creation 

and quantum physics?

And to knowingly reject 

the uncreated creator behind it all?

It's a lil 

"unreasonable"

dont you think?

A Plausible argument would need to be:

 "seeming reasonable or probable.

I would say

"i rest my case."

But: