"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...

On 10 Apr, 16:04, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...

| On 9 Apr, 03:45, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| Brain..., You have not offered any proof what so ever that Harun Yahya
is
| wrong. What you have offered is your assertion, your opinion, and an
| alternate view point from another web site on that one specific part
of
the
| page.
|
| And even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong has
nothing
| to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with
Penrose's
| thoughts on his findings.
|
| Why do you so desire to distract from Penrose's findings? Are you
having
| doubts about your beloved science? Get your family bible out and start
| reading. Your doubts will go away if you study it and cross reference
as
any
| other text book.
|
| Kolmogorov's second axiom states in plain English that an event is
| impossible when the probability of that event happening is zero.
|
| From which it can be deduced that if an event has a probability value
| greater than zero that event can happen.
|
| That is not an assertion, nor is it an opinion, or an alternative view
| point.
|
| It is a fact.

All you have done validate penrose's the statement when he said " the
creator's aim" had to be very good. The number in the equation did not say
it was an absolute zero, only that it was a very unlikely probability as
the
number was so large.

As I said, even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong has
nothing
to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with Penrose's
thoughts on his findings.

|
| So when Harun Yahya said:
| and
| "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
| "zero probability"."
|
| He was lying, either deliberately or through ignorance.
|
| And it was Harun Yahya that declared:
|
| "Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental"
| creation of our universe is an impossibility."
|
| But Roger Penrose never made such an assertion.

But he did make this assertion:

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."

Why is so hard to understand? Roger Pennrose did not say it was impossible
only that the number was extraordinary. So you could argue that Harun
Yahyais its incorrect and you could even be right that he is incorrect,
but,
guess what? it does not matter. Because Roger Penrose himself says that
the
number is an extraordinary figure and insinuates that the creators aim had
to be quite accurate.

|
| If you cannot accept the evidence against Harun Yahya, then the onus
| is on you to defend his assertions.

This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun Yahya
and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract from
Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary figure
penrose came up with against the singularity.

Right?

Oh really?

Did I come up with Harun Yahya simply as a distraction to detract from
Roger Penrose's work?

Perhaps you didn't read the whole of the article you cited at the end
of your opening post, it contains the following close to the end:

" ... adopted from The Equilibrium in the Explosion, by Harun Yahya."

The title you gave this thread was "Yep, it is an impossibility!"

And your opening words (which I present here verbatim) we

"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."

You vehemently defended this opening posture of yours all the while,
occasionally lapsing into ad hominem attacks, which I forgive you for
doing.
half
And now you are taking up a position completely contrary to your
original one, and parading it as if it had been your position all
along.

That is quite remarkable.



What is remarkable,?

* * the many * * times you have backpedaled and change your position in this
thread.

In sci.physics.relativity adman wrote:

[...]
So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?

Yes, in the sense of being deliberately quoted out of context.
First of all, in your original post, you wrote

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.

In fact, the section of _The Emperor's New Mind_ from which the
number you are quoting comes from -- the end of chapter 7 -- says
nothing at all about "variables required for human beings to exist
and live on a planet such as ours." You can easily check this yourself.
The issue he is discussing is the homogeneity of the universe and the
"arrow of time."

Second, the quotation you gave avoids Penrose's conclusions about
this "problem" -- namely, that it sets conditions for a quantum theory
of gravity. Penrose has a long essay in the book _The Future of
Theoretical Physics and Cosmology_, based on a talk he gave at
Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. (I was there, and can
confirm that this is what he said.) The number 10^{-10^123}},
cited on page 61, is the probability of the very low Weyl curvature
of the extremely early universe "having arisen purely by chance."
But Penrose's conclusion is not that God did it, but that our current
understanding of quantum gravity is inadequate, and that we need
a new theory giving us "a consistent picture in which the quantum
and classical levels can co-exist."

Penrose concludes his essay by saying, "As I said before, I am very
optimistic. I do not know what this new theory is, but at least it
could be something which somebody out there somewhere maybe will
come up with in a reasonable time. I do not know when, but it would
be nice to be alive when that happens."

So, yes -- Penrose is being quoted out of context, in a way that
completely distorts his meaning. His quote has nothing at all to
do with, in your words,

how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion.

It has to do with what ingredients should go into a quantum theory
of gravity, a prospect about which which he is "very optimistic."

Once again, though, don't take my word for this -- get the books, and
read them yourself.

Steve Carlip

"adman" wrote

This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun
Yahya and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to
detract from Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the
extraordinary figure penrose came up with against the singularity.

"Against the singularity"? Penrose never said anything against the
singularity. He fully accepts that it happened.

How do you reconcile Penrose's numbers with the fact that Penrose accepts
the Big Bang theory?

--Wax

Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big Bang.".
It can be found at:
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1

The number referred to (1^10^123) is given by Penrose to illustrate the low
entropy at the point of the Big Bang. He goes on to explain how (according
to his theory) the early universe came to possess such low entropy.

The lecture is about an hour long, and is often rambling and difficult to
follow, but it helps if you are familiar with his book "The Road to
Reality", Particularly chs. 27, 28, 29, and 30. His discussion of Weyl
curvature and Ricci tensors in "The Emperor's New Mind" is also helpful.
But even if you have not read his books, you will find the lecture
interesting.

Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big Bang.".
It can be found at:
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1

The number referred to (1^10^123) is given by Penrose to illustrate the low
entropy at the point of the Big Bang. He goes on to explain how (according
to his theory) the early universe came to possess such low entropy.

The lecture is often rambling and difficult to follow, but it helps if you
are familiar with his book "The Road to Reality". Particularly chs. 27, 28,
29, and 30. His discussion of Weyl curvature and Ricci tensors in "The
Emperor's New Mind" is also helpful.

--Wax

"adman" wrote in message
...

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?
|
| I am saying that Penrose was delibertly quoted out of context.

One sentence and you may have a point. The quote was an entire paragraph,
an
entire thought.

The book in which Penrose goes into this subject, "The Road to Reality", is
over a thousand pages. In chapter 27 Penrose describes the low entropy of
the Big Bang. That is where your number comes from. Chapter 28 surveys
various thories on how it got that way. Chapter 29 goes into background
information on quantum mechanics, and then chapter 30 gives Penrose's
explanation for the low entropy. He expands on that for the next three
chapters.

Taking a section out of chapter 27 without going into the following chapters
would be dishonest.
|
| I think not.
|
| Those were Rene Descartes' last words.

You had a point to make?

| He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie
|
| But people use mumbers to lie. That is what's happening.

But the Numbers themselves do not lie. It is quite clear Penrose came up
with an astronomical number to hit the singularity

You are trying to make it sound like Penrose rejects the Big Bang theory.
Penrose fully accepts the singularity and says that the Big Bang did happen.
Therefore your assertion that the Big Bang is "impossible" is contrary to
what Penrose says and believes.

|
| If you want to understand Penrose, then you have to read Penrose.
However,
| you have neither the desire nor the ability to comprehend his ideas.
|
| --Wax
|

These are Penrose's exact remarks on the number he discovered:

Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 10 to10123. 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.


Now THAT is pretty self explanitory and not out of context.

Taken out of context. Penrose is a supporter of the Big Bang theory.

--Wax

Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big Bang.".
It can be found at:
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1

The number referred to (1^10^123) is given by Penrose to illustrate the low
entropy at the point of the Big Bang. He goes on to explain how (according
to his theory) the early universe came to possess such low entropy.

The lecture is often rambling and difficult to follow, but it helps if you
are familiar with his book "The Road to Reality". Particularly chs. 27, 28,
29, and 30. His discussion of Weyl curvature and Ricci tensors in "The
Emperor's New Mind" is also helpful. If you haven't read the books, it's
enjoyable anyway.

--Wax

Pastor Dave blathered:
(snip)

Fact: All attempts like this, are a means of
trying to explain it away without God being
involved at all!

Yeah, those same people try to explain baseball, accounting, and meteorology
without God being involved at all too!

How silly.

wrote:
snip
Once again, though, don't take my word for this -- get the books, and
read them yourself.

Steve Carlip

Book! Read!! Learn !!! Think???
Wash your mouth out with soap.

On Apr 5, 6:07*am, "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

According to Roger Penrose its possible God could have created the
universe in a more likely way?

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008