"BRAINIAC" wrote

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?

I'm not familiar with the book myself. Only thing I can do is suggest
Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Probabilities-...8398489&sr=1-9

I once had a college professor who came up with a brilliant theory based on
the fact that everybody's legs were the exact length needed to reach the
ground. That is even more astounding when you consider that while you are
growing, your legs are getting longer too. Yet, your legs are always just
the right length to reach the ground. The odds of that being by chance is
so extreme that it could be called impossible.

The same professor also pointed out how extraordinary it is that most
American babies will soon speak English. French babies will start speaking
French. Chinese babies will become Chinese speakers. And where are all the
Russian speaking babies? In Russia. If this was done at random, the United
States would have more Chinese speakers than it has.. The odds against
that is just too great.

--Wax

weatherwax wrote:
snip

I once had a college professor who came up with a brilliant theory
based on the fact that everybody's legs were the exact length needed
to reach the ground. That is even more astounding when you consider
that while you are growing, your legs are getting longer too. Yet,
your legs are always just the right length to reach the ground. The
odds of that being by chance is so extreme that it could be called
impossible.
I work with several short people and am always telling them that if their
legs reach the ground they are tall enough. It's good to know there is solid
science behind it.

The same professor also pointed out how extraordinary it is that most
American babies will soon speak English. French babies will start
speaking French. Chinese babies will become Chinese speakers. And
where are all the Russian speaking babies? In Russia. If this was
done at random, the United States would have more Chinese speakers
than it has.. The odds against that is just too great.

--Wax

Did he cover dialects and accents? That clearly raises the odds.

On 17 Apr, 04:56, "weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

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?

I'm not familiar with the book myself. *Only thing I can do is suggest
Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Probabilities-.../B00104M2JW/re...

I already checked that link out, but I cannot afford the international
mailing charges, the long wait for the delivery, or the additional
charges my bank will make to my debit card for purchasing from
overseas.

And sadly the UK branch of Amazon doesn't have that book available at
this time, and isn't sure if it will ever have it again.

Worse still not a single bookstore or public library in my local area
has this book, or any information as to where I can get hold of it.

Still never mind, perhaps I might get lucky someday.

The reason why I mention that book is because so many creationists
misquote and blatantly distort Emile Borel's work by declaring that
any event with odds of 1 in 10^50 or more is a "zero probability"
event, and even have the nerve to claim that this was said by Emile
Borel himself.

Worse still they try and make out that his assertion which he called
the "single law of chance" is an actual natural law, and that this is
why certain things like evolution or the formation of amino acids into
proteins cannot happen by chance.

I would love to have the book and be able to put them right on this
issue, but all I have found online are a few scraps which to me are
not enough to sort it all out and refute the creationist claims.


I once had a college professor who came up with a brilliant theory based on
the fact that everybody's legs were the exact length needed to reach the
ground. *That is even more astounding when you consider that while you are
growing, your legs are getting longer too. *Yet, your legs are always just
the right length to reach the ground. *The odds of that being by chance is
so extreme that it could be called impossible.

The same professor also pointed out how extraordinary it is that most
American babies will soon speak English. *French babies will start speaking
French. *Chinese babies will become Chinese speakers. *And where are all the
Russian speaking babies? *In Russia. *If this was done at random, the United
States would have more Chinese speakers than it has.. * *The odds against
that is just too great.

--Wax

On 16 apr, 19:53, "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

The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold.
All matter inside the black hole has accelerated towards light speed.
That means that it has maximum temperature.
(temperature being the average velocity regardless of direction)
also the matter inside a black hole all has the same direction
(inside)
that means it has minimum entropy.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 16 apr, 19:53, "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

The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold.
All matter inside the black hole has accelerated towards light speed.
That means that it has maximum temperature.
(temperature being the average velocity regardless of direction)
also the matter inside a black hole all has the same direction
(inside)
that means it has minimum entropy.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

Take me back to the black hole,

The black hole of Calcutta.

the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On Apr 8, 4:12 am, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 6 Apr, 12:46, "adman" wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote in
messagenews:4adhv317q3cc02o8svo7c5gf72tas998s6@4ax .com...
| | On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:29:22 -0500, "adman"
| | enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| |
| | The only thing pathetic is an arm chair scientist wanna be
discounting
| | information from an obviously well qualified, well edcuated, and wlll
| | accomplished, real scientists; a person that has written a book with
| Steven
| | Hawkins.
| |
| | Now THATS pathetic.
| |
| | Well, I've edited papers he has written for publication, attended many
| | of his lectures and I've sat down and talked with him. He is, indeed
| | well qualified, well educated, and well accomplished "real" scientist.
| | He understands the Big Bang better than most and he most certainly
| | does not have time for pathetic lying morons like you.
|
| Exactly how am i lying?
|
| I quoted Him directly.
|
| Quoted who directly? Roger Penrose or Harun Yahya?

Harun Yahya is Quoting Penrose on the web page. Can't you read? He gave the
books where he got Penrose's quotes in the footnotes.Why? The books are not
published on line I guess. However, I did come across an interview Penrose
did where he expounded on his computations.

I am sure someone with your wealth of intelligence can verify Harun Yahya's
website on Penrose's remarks.
I read about Penrose and about his books. There is nothing to suggest Harun
Yahya is lying and making up quotes that Penrose did not say.

NOW, If Penrose, an obviously well qualified, well educated, and well
accomplished real scientist says the mathematical odds are overwhelmingly
against the universe simply *poofing* into existence, then I believe it

Trying to discredit Harun Yahya by insinuating Harun Yahya makes the remarks
and not Penrose is simply denial on your part. Face facts. 1) singulaeity is
not proven 2) The mathematical odds are overwhelmingly against the universe
simply *poofing* into existence. 3) The Big Bang THEORY is moot.

The lack of imagination on how something could have happened is not
proof it could never have happend.Remember that Penrose and others
trying to use statistics to predict the probabilities of an event such
as the big bang without knowing how the physics may actually work and
are forced to use assumptions and to add to the confusion that no one
knows what the odds are of each of those assumptions being right or
wrong.For things like the big bang where you don't have a decent
scientific foundation to start from it all ends up as piles of
guesswork.
According to an alternative theory that I so frequently post here
about its actually really easy to explain how a big bang would work if
you can get to the point where you can actually understand how
gravitational time dilation works. If so you should be able to
understand this very plausible alternative theory where I have
included a web site below to get you started.
Turns out if this alternative theory is right that any creation of a
black hole should also result in expanding the space in and around
them and interestingly enough gives the same predictions as those of
inflation theory for hypothetical observers inside of one when it was
created. While this web site that is still incomplete it will still
have enough info there now to get you started on how the theory works
www.alttheories.com.You will still find more info from my postings
than on the site at this time but the site is still useful.Its to be
noted that while I do get occasional other posters that at first seam
to disagree they have not provided much info or opinions on where the
theory is actually wrong and thats interesting because they should
have been able to do so, theory's not that complex to have been hard
to refute it it was clearly wrong.

I don't know how many of my postings you may have read but if you did
you will also know how the theory strangely enough actually results in
the best argument for the possibility of god ever.This is ironic
because one would have expected the very opposite to be the case.
But you still end up having to essentially throw the bible away and
start over.
Dale

On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman 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:
"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."

Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
magnitude among friends?

Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:

"In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead
to some form of life.

That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
some myself to find out what it meant.
Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
Dale


If it is half, then the probability for life is
fifty percent."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

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

No, your number was a little more than one in a million. Sorry.



Now, go fix your news reader

|
| --
| Bob.
|

wrote in message
...

| On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman 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:
| "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."
|
| Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| magnitude among friends?
|
| Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
|
| "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
| estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
| physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
| possible universes formed with different properties could still have
lead
| to some form of life.
|
| That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| some myself to find out what it meant.
| Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| Dale



has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
being elsewhere in the universe or in a parallel universe?

On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman 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:
"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."

Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
magnitude among friends?

Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:

"In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead
to some form of life.

Thats one really good point.The chances of life exactly as we know it
might be near infinitely unlikely but the possible alternatives are
also nearly infinite in number.
Change any small coefficient and then try to guess how many
alternative life forms are possible, is really hard to do when so much
guessing is required with few facts to work with.
In one of my postings I asked about a world where liquid ammonia was
replaced for water.Its a liquid at room temperature under pressure and
its slightly ionic meaning it will dissolve salts unlike gasoline etc
and its even acidic and basic but other chemists pointed out that its
so much less ionic than water that it seamed unlikely.But then again
who is to say that from an intelligent being on an ammonia ocean word
these inhabitants would not argue that to them it seamed unthinkable
that anything as ionic as water could support life as they knew it.
I read about selenium oxychloride being the best solvent known in an
encylopedia,anyone here have any idea what that was about.Its probable
that I will just have to make some and find out for myself.Be
interesting if its enough like water that you could speculate about
such a world where it replaces water.
Dale

If it is half, then the probability for life is
fifty percent."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

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

No, your number was a little more than one in a million. Sorry.



Now, go fix your news reader

|
| --
| Bob.
|

are forced to use assumptions and to add to the confusion that no one
knows what the odds are of each of those assumptions being right or
wrong.For things like the big bang where you don't have a decent
scientific foundation to start from it all ends up as piles of
guesswork.

Forgive me for posting to my own post but I got more to add.
I noticed that no one brought up the Drakes equation for a statistical
estimation on the chances
of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
To briefly review for those not familiar and I am doing this from
memory so its not accurate.The idea in principle works by for example
taking the number of observable stars and reducing the number by
assuming only some of them have planets,reduce the number more for the
ones with planets of the right size and temperature etc etc but in the
end since the number we started with was so large we still end up with
some planets where intelligent life could have evolved.
adman you need to remember that the universe is really big so we also
have the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe to add to this
whole thing. And you can bet that if intelligent they will also have
at one time or another had estimated fantastically large numbers to
support the idea that they could not exist.And their estimates would
be true for them to exist exactly as they are.
Dale

According to an alternative theory that I so frequently post here
about its actually really easy to explain how a big bang would work if
you can get to the point where you can actually understand how
gravitational time dilation works. If so you should be able to
understand this very plausible alternative theory where I have