On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ...
| On 5 Apr, 15:07, "adman" wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
| Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
| Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
| itself after a big bang explosion.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
|
| The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the
| probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10
to
| the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe
this
| possibility.
|
| Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of
| Stephen
| Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
| probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required
for
| human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed
the
| probability of this environment occurring among all the possible
results
| of
| the Big Bang.
|
| According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the
| order
| of 1010123 to 1.
| It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value
| 10123
| means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the
total
| number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But
| Penrose's
| answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123
zeros.
|
| Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that
has
| 1
| followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million;
if
| nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a
name
| for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
|
| In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
"zero
| probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion
| times
| less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the
'accidental"
| or
| "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
|
| Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
| This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to
an
| accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One
| could
| not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
| notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we
were
| to
| write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the
| entire
| universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good
measure-
| we
| should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
|
| http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
|
| Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you cited.
|
| It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
| than negative values.
|
| Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for any
| reason, other than to show it to be false.
|
| Sorry about having to tell you that.
|
| [chuckle]
|
| Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
| Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
| itself after a big bang explosion.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
|
| I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR name
is in
| wikipedia!
|
| I stand corrected on one thing only.
|
| Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
|
| It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason none
| of his works are ever written under his real name.
|
| I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise the
| Creator's aim must have been."
|
| Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| works, or websites that refer to his works.
|
| Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| with this quotation.
References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton,
Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
|
| Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| article is flawed is still correct.
|
| And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| probability is not an impossibility.
|
| That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| unable to accept.
|
| .- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
Lets consider some information here.
Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
an event of negligible probability.
Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
probability".
Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.
I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
online:
http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.
So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
Roger Penrose.
Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
flawed.