Quote:

---

Our existence is based on a very precise combination of nature constants. If the density of the universe at Big Bang time were a little higher or lower, or if other constants were a little different, heavy elements and thus carbon based life could not exist. In fact 99,9..% of all possible combinations of nature constants would lead to bleak universes without stars, planets, and life.

Obviously, we exist nevertheless.

---

Isn't this precise combination of nature constants the evidence of a balance reached at one point in time, making it possible for us to exist? When you think about all constants as being a bit visually abstract, liquid-like all within a bottle mixed just right, like it's wine, only a good and balanced mix of all ingredients will taste good, wine also need time for it's taste to improve, all in all that 1 % would be the perfect wine? ... Somehow I see it as being inevitable, the density of the universe and other constants are relative(?), when you look at any 'circles of life', you will see one infuencing another, being dependent off another, all in all very cyclic and circular and in balance (ideal situation).

I take it the world around us is the result of the 1% of combinations that are possible, but would this be just 1 or still more than 1 possibilities? In the wine example you can have different 'constants' and (very) different tastes, but it's not impossible either to get a very similar taste with different constants, or so one would think??

Cheers