On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:53 -0500, "adman" wrote:

snip


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.

I doubt that Penrose misunderstands the notation of numbers to the
large extent that you obviously do. Anybody that doesn't would not
post such a thing for an argument worth supporting. A probability of 1
in 1050 does not mean "zero probability." 1 in 1050 are actually
pretty good odds. I'll play the lotto all day long at those odds. A
dollar that 1050 plays will get me a million or that orbiting 1 of
every 1050 stars is a planet where life has arisen? Sign me up. You
might mean 10 raised to the power of 50 or 10 raised to the power of
1050. You would notate that as 10^50 or 10^1050, respectively. And one
part in 1010123 does not mean 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's.
After you've done us the courtesy of at least deciding what it is that
you do mean, then I guess either one would makes us some pretty damn
lucky, albeit smelly, apes, since after all, here we are. After that
you can have a wag at the odds against there being this creator you're
on about.



http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html