Lol that was no typo I was pointing out. That was pure irony borne out of your own gaumlessness. Science understands, as you put it, no such thing. Science understands the term fine tuning is a description in theoretical physics for describing problematic given values. The anthropic description of 'fine tuning' is not a scientific finding. The theistic term 'fine tuning' is a bunch of misinformed, unreasoned speculations based on false claims and pseudoscience. Or in your case, on a permanent willful ignorance against what is actually being said. Like the post above, all you ever do is try to put words and meaning contrary to what people are actually saying, whether it's those top Nobel winning scientists of yours which you like to misrepresent or just myself, to suit your religiously closed mind. It doesn't make you right. It makes you dishonest, ignorant, and a troll yourself.
There may only be a few which can occur, otherwise no variations. Even if there are astronomical odds against variations or a galactic number of variations, such odds occur all the time, even in card games, and yet their associated outcomes happen many times everyday.
You're asking me to think of a number for something which has no known number. ookaay...42. Your point please?
Sure but to make it I need a guesstimate. My question was how many possible variations do you think there are, not how many that allow life.
You argue with dictionaries, you argum with historians now you argue the best minds in science. Dawkins cited Rees Book Wikipedia confirms this is what rees said. This is an excerpt of the previous quote. Your degree in astrology? has no standing in real physics. "The first of these numbers, represented in Reesâs book by the letter N, is the ratio of the strength of the electrical force to the gravitational force. Rees states that if this number were just slightly smaller, stars would have much reduced life cycles: the balance between the gravitational forces pulling stars together and the electrical forces stopping them from collapsing is closely related to the longevity of stars. Without this fine balance we could not expect planets like Earth to have had time to develop. Even the most optimistic of evolutionary theories maintains that life can only arise after a vast amount of time. Without a stable sun to orbit around, the existence of Earth, or life on it, would be highly improbable. Reesâs second number, ε (epsilon), defines how strongly atomic nuclei bind together. This factor governs the power output from stars and affects the type and abundance of elements that are produced within them. If this number were just slightly different, the chemical abundance in the universe would be radically altered, preventing the existence of the type of life we see on Earth. The third number, Ω (omega), measures the amount of material in the universe. If this number had been too high, the universe would have collapsed upon itself long ago, all the matter in the universe being drawn back into a single pointâa âbig crunch.â If it had been too low, stars and galaxies would never have formed. What matter there is would have been scattered thinly across the depths of space. Yet what Rees found is that the initial expansion speed of the universe and the amount of material within it appear to have been finely tuned to promote a long-lived and stable universe suitable for the development and sustaining of life. His fourth number, λ (lambda), has only resurfaced in scientific thought within the last few years. It relates to an assumed antigravity effect that modifies the rate of expansion of the universe to explain recent astronomical observations. Einstein initially calculated such a force into his general theory of relativity to predict a stable universe, but he later reckoned that the addition of this âcosmological constantâ was the biggest mistake of his life. Ironically, many cosmologists now think he may have been right after all. Rees points out that, fortunately for us, the value of the number is extremely small. If it were not, it would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming and, once again, we would not exist. The fifth number, represented by the letter Q, relates to the degree of structure in the universe. This number, too, seems to have been imprinted into the early universe in the big bang, and it, too, appears to be carefully balanced to allow life to exist. If this number were only slightly smaller, the universe would be inert and would lack structure. A little larger, and the universe would be too violent for stars or solar systems to survive. Instead, it would be dominated by vast black holes. The sixth number, represented by the letter D, is a simple one that has been known for centuries. It is the number of spatial dimensions we live in and is equal to three: height, width and depth. If the universe we lived in had four spatial dimensions, many of the laws of nature would have to be rewritten. Life in the forms we know it just could not have originated. UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE? All six numbers, which relate only to cosmology and not to any of the other physical sciences that have a bearing on the existence of human life, appear to be perfectly tuned for just that purpose. That the fine-tuning is present is undisputed by the scientific world in general. But is this just coincidence, or is it divine providence or something else altogether?"
" Dawkins cited Rees Book"... ...and Dawkins disagrees with Rees in the vid you showed, so how exactly is that me "arguing with the best minds in science"? Makes one wonder what sort of messed up mind you really have, that can make such idiotic comments and think it still sensible to keep reposting the same cut & pastes ad nauseam after they've already been debunked so many times. Not to worry zombies eat brains so you'll be safe around them.
I suggested a number as meaningful as any other. I'm saying large or small it doesn't matter. It would make no difference.
Dawkins recommended Rees book in the video. They both support the multiverse idea to "possibly" explain the fine tunings of our universe. How could you miss that point? Its not even contentious. I thought you were a troll but maybe science is just completely beyond your comprehension because of how emotionally attached your are to your random chance did it world view.