On 6 Apr, 16:15, (William Wingstedt)
wrote:
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.


I have already told the poster of the opening post of this thread that
the article he cited is flawed, being as it misquotes the work of Emil
Borel and misrepresents the work of Roger Penrose.

Regarding Emil Borel's work and how Harun Yahya (upon whose book the
article cited by "adman" is based) deliberately misuses it, take a
look he

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

"Borel asserts that 10^-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic
scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of
observable stars (10^9) times the number of observations that humans
could make on those stars (10^20)."

Which is completely different to what the cited article says:

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

"In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
"zero probability"."

And regarding the work of Roger Penrose which the article alludes to,
if you check out this article:

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

Nowhere does Roger Penrose say the word "impossibility" or
"impossible", nor does he mention "zero probability".

However, some people cannot see the fact that Harun Yahya (who doesn't
even write his works under his real name) is deliberately distorting
things to make them fit his own preconcieved notions about the
universe.




http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...sibility.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In sci.physics.relativity adman wrote:

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.

You've been lied to. I suggest that you get a copy of _The Emperor's New Mind_
and read it yourself.

First, here's what Penrose has to say about evolution. In chapter 5, he places
theories into three classes, "superb," "useful," and "tentative." He describes
a "superb" theory as one for which "the range and accuracy with which it
applies should, in some sense, be phenomenal," and says that it is remarkable
that any such theories exist at all.

Being a mathematical physicist, Penrose is reluctant to place any theories in
the "superb" category except for a few fundamental theories of physics. But
he writes that in the rest of science, while there is no theory that he quite
considers "superb," "Perhaps natural selection, as proposed by Darwin and
Wallace, comes closest."

In other words, Penrose considers evolution to be the best established theory in
all of science except for a few fundamental theories of physics.

Now, what about this number 10^{10^123}? It *does* appear in _The Emperor's
New Mind_, but not in anything that has to do with "variables required for human
beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours."

Penrose introduces this number in a discussion of cosmology. He argues that if
the extremely early universe had been even very slightly lumpier, with matter
less evenly distributed, it would now consist mainly of black holes rather than
stars. But he does not propose that this requires a special creator; instead he
suggests a simple physical principle, the Weyl curvature hypothesis, that would
resolve this problem.

The question Penrose raises -- essentially, that the present entropy of the universe
is much lower than it could be -- is an important one in cosmology. Penrose's
answer is certainly not the only possibility; for example, "eternal inflation"
greatly diminishes the problem by suggesting a simple mechanism by which any
very tiny "accidentally" smooth region of the universe would "inflate" to a much
larger size. The issue is one of very active research.

At best, you are offering a "God of the gaps" argument, seizing upon an issue that
is not yet settled and saying, "Aha! That means God must have done it." This is
a theologically dangerous argument. It cuts both ways -- if you believe that our
lack of understanding of a problem in cosmology is evidence for God, then you
have to accept that if we later solve the problem, that's evidence *against* God.
Newton believed that God was necessary to explain why the planets all orbited
in a plane. We now understand the physics behind this; do you really want to
count that as an argument against God's existence?

At worst, you are the victim of some extremely dishonest quote-mining, in which
little pieces of Penrose's book have been ripped from their context to argue for
something completely different from what they really mean. You need to reexamine
the source of your quotes in this light.

(Don't just believe me about this... get the book and read it yourself!)

Steve Carlip

"adman" wrote in message
. ..

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.
CLIP

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

You make the same mistake which many fundamentalists do: You take the word
of a religious website as authoritative in the field of science. That is
like hiring a plumber to fix your car.

I have read two of Penrose's books: "The Emperor's New Mind" and "The Road
to Reality". Therefore I know that the above website quotes Penrose out of
context and misrepresents what he says.

--Wax

"Clyde Squid" wrote

Yawn! Has he published anything in a scientific journal, where his
"data" and conclusions are reviewed by professional, educated grown-
ups?

I'll gladly read that.

Credentials don't impress me, nor does un-reviewed mathematical
shenanigans.

Why are you so impressed by this nonsense? Do you have any
intellectual scrutiny at all?

Pathetic...

Roger Penrose is one of the most highly regarded theoretical physicists in
the world today. The quote which adman gave us was taken out of context and
misrepresents Penrose's position. Of the books he has written I highly
recommend "The Emperor's New Mind".

If you have the mathematical background, I suggest Penrose's book "The Road
to Reality". However, I have two years of Calculus, could not follow the
math, and gave up half way through. But it is still good for reference.

--Wax

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?

|
| --
| Bob.

"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.

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| 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.
| CLIP
|
| http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
|
| You make the same mistake which many fundamentalists do: You take the
word
| of a religious website as authoritative in the field of science. That is
| like hiring a plumber to fix your car.
|
| I have read two of Penrose's books: "The Emperor's New Mind" and "The
Road
| to Reality". Therefore I know that the above website quotes Penrose out
of
| context and misrepresents what he says.
|
| --Wax

You are incorrect. Penrose gave an interview where he expounded on his
computations.
The entire point of doing the computations, was to find out how probable the
big bang was from the mathematical POV. Penrose got an astronomical answer
saying the odds were against. Exactly HOW can a mathematical answer be MIS
quoted? The numbers do not lie.

If you actually read the book, which I doubt, you would know that Penrose's
answer was indeed overwhelming. .1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of
zeros) against.



|
|

On 8 Apr, 12:12, "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.

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 06:46:41 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| 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.

Did you?


|
| --
| Bob.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:09:45 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:53 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation,
|
| And a very nice guy as well.
|
| 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
|
|
| [snip rubbish from a crackpot bible site.]
|
| Now. Do you have any real evidence.

The first link. The one you smiped was the second site to have the same
info.

Besides that, you shoot the messenger because of the message?

The message was accurate from a well qualified scientist and scollar.

I said "Do you have any real evidence."


|
| --
| Bob.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.