On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:55:31 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
. ..
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
| adman wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote [...]:
| | I will state, quite categorically and without fear of contradiction
| | from himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is
| | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to have
| | come about by natural causes.
| |
| | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him (his email
| | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure he will tell one
| | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck off and stop being so
| | stupid.
|
| Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
|
| No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
| I can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
|
| 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
| if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman.
|
| I trust the Professor.

Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:

Not good enough. You need to ask the Professor exactly what he means.

"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."

You keep posting the same quote. You need to ask the Professor exactly
what he means.


As you can see, the professor is correct, and i am correct.

hohohoho! Only in your dreams.

Now, go fix your news reader

Mine is fine, yours is not. Fix it or earn more abuse reports.

As far as I'm concerned, this asshole should be reported for abuse
every time he posts.



|
| --
| Bob.
|
Fix your newsreader.

"adman" wrote
"weatherwax" wrote | "adman"
wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
| impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE made
the
| claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds
he
| caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
| probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because
the
| odds were so bad it happening by itself.
|
| The nubers only applies to a creator producing the universe ex nihilo.
|
| Considering the fact that Penrose does not believe that the universe was
| created ex nehilo, the numbers do not apply.
|
| --Wax

Bwhayayayayay!!! [cough] [choke on my coke] [wipes keyboard]

Tonz of laughter!!! Throw in some megabytes of laughter too!

I'll let Penrose know YOU think his numbers do NOT apply and that YOU are
SMARTER then HE is!

You kooks are so funny!

Try to slough it off if you can, but you are the one who does not know what
Penrose is saying. You don't want to know. You look foolish talking about
something you do not understand.

The problem is similar to a common "creationist" argument against evolution.
Creationists claim that DNA is so complex that it's impossible for it to
occur by chance. That is true, but science does not claim it happened by
chance.

The Penrose's numbers for the possibility of a universe similar to ours
appearing at the Big Bang are probably close. But he does not claim that
the universe happened suddenly came into existence at the Big Bang.. He
claims that there was a universe before the Big Bang that was instrumental
in determening the nature of our present universe.

If you don't believe me, just watch his video lecture "The Universe Before
the Big Bang".
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1

--Wax

On 13 Apr, 04:18, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

DENIAL

It;s not just a river in Egypt.

What a pointless response, can you not come up with anything better?

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...

| On 13 Apr, 04:18, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
|
...
| On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| DENIAL
|
| It;s not just a river in Egypt.
|
| What a pointless response, can you not come up with anything better?



I probably could. But then again, I could ask you same since you have your
eyes and ears closed. But that often happens when Penrose puts forth his
notions ---as we can see from this article in Wired magazine:



"His genius is unquestioned. No individual save Albert Einstein has
contributed more to relativity theory. But Penrose's sometimes-iconoclastic
notions can cause colleagues to close their eyes and ears."



I would say that you also have enclosed your eyes and ears to the quite
large number that Penrose arrived that, and I would further say that you
also have your eyes and ears closed to his comments on the discovery of his
Number since the only thing you want to discuss is me and Harun Yahya being
wrong.



http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...?currentPage=1

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote | "adman"
| wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| |
| | Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
| | impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE made
| the
| | claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds
| he
| | caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
| | probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because
| the
| | odds were so bad it happening by itself.
| |
| | The nubers only applies to a creator producing the universe ex nihilo.
| |
| | Considering the fact that Penrose does not believe that the universe
was
| | created ex nehilo, the numbers do not apply.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| Bwhayayayayay!!! [cough] [choke on my coke] [wipes keyboard]
|
| Tonz of laughter!!! Throw in some megabytes of laughter too!
|
| I'll let Penrose know YOU think his numbers do NOT apply and that YOU
are
| SMARTER then HE is!
|
| You kooks are so funny!
|
| Try to slough it off if you can, but you are the one who does not know
what
| Penrose is saying. You don't want to know. You look foolish talking
about
| something you do not understand.
|
| The problem is similar to a common "creationist" argument against
evolution.
| Creationists claim that DNA is so complex that it's impossible for it to
| occur by chance. That is true, but science does not claim it happened by
| chance.
|
| The Penrose's numbers for the possibility of a universe similar to ours
| appearing at the Big Bang are probably close. But he does not claim that
| the universe happened suddenly came into existence at the Big Bang.. He
| claims that there was a universe before the Big Bang that was instrumental
| in determening the nature of our present universe.
|
| If you don't believe me, just watch his video lecture "The Universe Before
| the Big Bang".
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1
|
| --Wax

probably close?

You are incorrect. Again, and as usual

We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything,"
Penrose told Nature earlier this year.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...?currentPage=1

And "he does not claim that the universe happened suddenly came into
existence at the Big Bang." is excactly
what i have been trying to tell you.
..

On 13 Apr, 12:01, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...

| On 13 Apr, 04:18, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ...
| On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| DENIAL
|
| It;s not just a river in Egypt.
|
| What a pointless response, can you not come up with anything better?

I probably could. But then again, I could ask you same since you have your
eyes and ears closed. But that often happens when Penrose puts forth his
notions ---as we can see from this article in Wired magazine:

"His genius is unquestioned. No individual save Albert Einstein has
contributed more to relativity theory. But Penrose's sometimes-iconoclastic
notions can cause colleagues to close their eyes and ears."

I would say that you also have enclosed your eyes and ears to the quite
large number that Penrose arrived that, and I would further say that you
also have your eyes and ears closed to his comments on the discovery of his
Number since the only thing you want to discuss is me and Harun Yahya being
wrong.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...?currentPage=1

I see, I told you that I am actually reading Roger Penrose's book "The
Emperor's New Mind" and now you are accusing me of closing my eyes and
ears to his work and his comments.

How do you manage to reach such a conclusion?

Is it because I don't agree with your interpretation of his work and
what you read into his comments?

And one other question now, are you admitting that Harun Yahya's
interpretation of Roger Penrose's (and Emile Borel's) work is wrong?

Perhaps you can answer these questions without jumping to any more
erroneous conclusions about what I think, know or understand.

"adman" wrote
"weatherwax" wrote
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote
| "adman"
| wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| |
| | Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
| | impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE
made
| the
| | claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those
odds
| he
| | caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
| | probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good
because
| the
| | odds were so bad it happening by itself.
| |
| | The nubers only applies to a creator producing the universe
| | ex nihilo.
| |
| | Considering the fact that Penrose does not believe that the
| | universe was created ex nehilo, the numbers do not apply.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| Bwhayayayayay!!! [cough] [choke on my coke] [wipes
| keyboard]
|
| Tonz of laughter!!! Throw in some megabytes of laughter too!
|
| I'll let Penrose know YOU think his numbers do NOT apply
| and that YOU are SMARTER then HE is!
|
| You kooks are so funny!
|
| Try to slough it off if you can, but you are the one who does
| not know what Penrose is saying. You don't want to know
| You look foolish talking about something you do not understand.
|
| The problem is similar to a common "creationist" argument
| against evolution. Creationists claim that DNA is so complex
| that it's impossible for it to occur by chance. That is true, but
| science does not claim it happened by chance.
|
| The Penrose's numbers for the possibility of a universe similar
| to ours appearing at the Big Bang are probably close. But he
| does not claim that the universe happened suddenly came
| into xistence at the Big Bang.. He claims that there was a
| universe before the Big Bang that was instrumental in
| determening the nature of our present universe.
|
| If you don't believe me, just watch his video lecture "The
| Universe Before the Big Bang".
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1
|
| --Wax

probably close?

You are incorrect. Again, and as usual

You quote both Penrose and myself out of context. My comment "probably
close" was in reference to the same number which you have been presenting
and basing your argument on (i.e. 10^10^123.) The number is based upon the
estimated number of baryons in the universe (10^80). Are you now rejecting
that number?


We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of
everything," Penrose told Nature earlier this year.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...?currentPage=1

That is primarily a review of the book "The Road to Reality". I have read
the book.

What scientists refer to as the "theory of everything" or "TOE" is a theory
which explains all physical phenomenom. The Theory of Relativity and
Quantum Theory are each highly accurate in explaining physical phenomenom in
their areas, but the two theories do not fit each other. A Theory of
Everything would combine the two theories into one. String theory is a
possible solution. A quantum explanation of gravity has been tried by many.
Penrose feels that it is Quantum Theory which has to be revised. Ether way,
it would not affect the number baryons in the universe.

And "he does not claim that the universe happened suddenly came
into existence at the Big Bang." is excactly what i have been trying
to tell you.

You are still trying to make a point by quoting out of context. I had added
"He (Penrose) claims that there was a universe before the Big Bang that was
instrumental in determining the nature of our present universe." That is
not what you are saying at all.

I should correct the use of the word "claims". Actually, Penrose is
presenting this only as a working hypothesis. In his book, "The Road to
Reality" he spends a chapter on other possibilities, such as string theory,
early symmetry breaking, inflationary cosmology and even the anthropic
principle. But, as I said earlier, none of them would change the number of
baryons in the universe.

--Wax

On 13 Apr, 12:01, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...

| On 13 Apr, 04:18, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ...
| On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| DENIAL
|
| It;s not just a river in Egypt.
|
| What a pointless response, can you not come up with anything better?

I probably could. But then again, I could ask you same since you have your
eyes and ears closed. But that often happens when Penrose puts forth his
notions ---as we can see from this article in Wired magazine:

"His genius is unquestioned. No individual save Albert Einstein has
contributed more to relativity theory. But Penrose's sometimes-iconoclastic
notions can cause colleagues to close their eyes and ears."

I would say that you also have enclosed your eyes and ears to the quite
large number that Penrose arrived that, and I would further say that you
also have your eyes and ears closed to his comments on the discovery of his
Number since the only thing you want to discuss is me and Harun Yahya being
wrong.

Let's look at the last two paragraphs of the article you cited in your
opening post:

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

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely
to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. 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 10^123
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.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of
coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at
all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive
the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How
could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the
earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the
other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of
atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we
peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only
people who reflect can grasp these signs."

The first of these two paragraphs are clearly from Roger Penrose's
book "The Emperor's New Mind", but the second does not, and in no way
reflects the thoughts of Roger Penrose.

In fact that final paragraph comes from an article by Harun Yahya
himself, which you can read he

http://www.harunyahya.com/article2_01.php

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed my
eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is completely
unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed you that I am
reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.


http://www.wired.com/culture/lifesty...?currentPage=1

"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed my
eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is completely
unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed you that I am
reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way through
because the math was beyond anything I had. However, the second half of the
book is more theoretical and has less math. I read "The Emperor's New Mind"
several years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind".
May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates, but in
a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates. The result:
The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes are cold and high
entropy. In other words, gravity is not time symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose believes we
have to unite quantum mechanics with General Relativity before we can come
up with the solution to the fine tuning of the universe problem. Penrose
also says we are nowhere near doing that.

--Wax

On 16 Apr, 18:53, "weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote



And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed my
eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is completely
unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed you that I am
reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. *I had given up about half way through
because the math was beyond anything I had. *However, the second half of the
book is more theoretical and has less math. *I read "The Emperor's New Mind"
several years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind"..
May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates, but in
a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates. * The result:
The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes are cold and high
entropy. *In other words, gravity is not time symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. *Penrose believes we
have to unite quantum mechanics with General Relativity before we can come
up with the solution to the fine tuning of the universe problem. *Penrose
also says we are nowhere near doing that.

--Wax

Well as I said earlier I am reading it, but so far I am just on the
introductory bits, it is I have to admit an exceptionally large text,
but I will get through it eventually. There is a lot even in the early
chapters that needs to be read carefully in order to understand it
clearly.

And while we are on the subject of books of this kind, do you know of
any source for Emile Borel's "Probabilities and Life" preferably in
English, that I may be able to get hold of here in the UK?