On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:08:04 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:28:29 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "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.
|
| Your stupidity shows.
|
| The odds are 50-50. Either it happened or it didn't. We are here to
| prove it did.

Fix your news reader.

Mine isn't broken - yours is.

And get an edcuation from some someplace else other then a match book cover

I don't talk about things I don't understand. I wish the same could be
said of you.

.
|
| --
| Bob.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:20:02 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
| ...
| | On 8 Apr, 19:55, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | [snipped for brevity and focus]
| |
| | I said "likely" a flat out liar. See how you mis read?
| |
| | The evidence speaks for itself
| |
| | Oh really?
| |
| | Here are your very words " ... more likely, you are just a flat out
| | liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to your
| | narrow mind ... "
| |
| | Whatever way you look at it, you have accused me of lying and of
| | distortion.
| |
| | Harun Yahya states:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | And that comes straight from the article you cited in your opening
| | post.
| |
| | Here is your cited link:
| |
| | http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | And from the article I cited:
| |
| | "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)."
| |
| | And here is my cited link:
| |
| | http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
| |
| | Please note Harun Yahya says 10^50 and Borel says 10^-50, see the
| | minus sign?
| |
| | Now tell me, where have I distorted anything from either of these
| | cited sources?
| |
| | And regarding the words of Harun Yahya on the work of Roger Penrose.
| |
| | Let me ask you again, where in the article I cited for the work of
| | Roger Penrose do you find the words "probability", "zero probability"
| | or "impossibility"?
| |
| | Here is the link again:
| |
| | http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
| |
| | And here is Harun Yahya's comment that follows the words he took from
| | Roger Penrose's work:
| |
| | "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| | "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
| |
| | So Harun Yahya misquotes Emil Borel.
| |
| | He then quotes a section of Roger Penrose's work.
| |
| | And finishes not with Roger Penrose's conclusion, but his own
| | conclusion.
| |
| | A conclusion based ultimately on a false assumption.
| |
| | That being:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | So how have I lied, or distorted anything?
| |
| | The burden of proof is on you now to defend your accusations.
| |
| | - Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
|
| Your distortion (and lie) is you distracting from the original point.
|
| First you said Penrose was wrong, THEN you claimed that a scientist such
as
| Penrose is using a deliberate distortion, when you saw these two tactics
did
| not work you proceed now to on and on about an insignificant piece of the
| article to AVOID addressing the fact that the mathmatical odds are
against
| the universe going BANG and being created. WHY is THAT.
|
| 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?
Will such a brilliant man retract his work for a usenet k00ks that cannot
seen to work a news reader?

Hahahahahahahah!! OH! Hhahahahahah!! MegaTonZ of laughter!!

|
| --
| Bob.
|

On Apr 9, 12:31 pm, "adman" wrote:
"Ye Old One" wrote in messagenews:bm2pv3hv047e1h040lqg4a86g1bku2hdpu@4ax .com...
| On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:20:02 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
| | "BRAINIAC" wrote in message

| ...
| | On 8 Apr, 19:55, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | [snipped for brevity and focus]
| |
| | I said "likely" a flat out liar. See how you mis read?
| |
| | The evidence speaks for itself
| |
| | Oh really?
| |
| | Here are your very words " ... more likely, you are just a flat out
| | liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to your
| | narrow mind ... "
| |
| | Whatever way you look at it, you have accused me of lying and of
| | distortion.
| |
| | Harun Yahya states:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | And that comes straight from the article you cited in your opening
| | post.
| |
| | Here is your cited link:
| |
| |http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | And from the article I cited:
| |
| | "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)."
| |
| | And here is my cited link:
| |
| |http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
| |
| | Please note Harun Yahya says 10^50 and Borel says 10^-50, see the
| | minus sign?
| |
| | Now tell me, where have I distorted anything from either of these
| | cited sources?
| |
| | And regarding the words of Harun Yahya on the work of Roger Penrose.
| |
| | Let me ask you again, where in the article I cited for the work of
| | Roger Penrose do you find the words "probability", "zero probability"
| | or "impossibility"?
| |
| | Here is the link again:
| |
| |http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
| |
| | And here is Harun Yahya's comment that follows the words he took from
| | Roger Penrose's work:
| |
| | "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| | "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
| |
| | So Harun Yahya misquotes Emil Borel.
| |
| | He then quotes a section of Roger Penrose's work.
| |
| | And finishes not with Roger Penrose's conclusion, but his own
| | conclusion.
| |
| | A conclusion based ultimately on a false assumption.
| |
| | That being:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | So how have I lied, or distorted anything?
| |
| | The burden of proof is on you now to defend your accusations.
| |
| | - Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
|
| Your distortion (and lie) is you distracting from the original point.
|
| First you said Penrose was wrong, THEN you claimed that a scientist such
as
| Penrose is using a deliberate distortion, when you saw these two tactics
did
| not work you proceed now to on and on about an insignificant piece of the
| article to AVOID addressing the fact that the mathmatical odds are
against
| the universe going BANG and being created. WHY is THAT.
|
| 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?
Will such a brilliant man retract his work for a usenet k00ks that cannot
seen to work a news reader?

Hahahahahahahah!! OH! Hhahahahahah!! MegaTonZ of laughter!!

I take it he didn't answer your e-mail? :-)

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:31:33 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:20:02 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
| ...
| | On 8 Apr, 19:55, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | [snipped for brevity and focus]
| |
| | I said "likely" a flat out liar. See how you mis read?
| |
| | The evidence speaks for itself
| |
| | Oh really?
| |
| | Here are your very words " ... more likely, you are just a flat out
| | liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to your
| | narrow mind ... "
| |
| | Whatever way you look at it, you have accused me of lying and of
| | distortion.
| |
| | Harun Yahya states:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | And that comes straight from the article you cited in your opening
| | post.
| |
| | Here is your cited link:
| |
| | http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | And from the article I cited:
| |
| | "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)."
| |
| | And here is my cited link:
| |
| | http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
| |
| | Please note Harun Yahya says 10^50 and Borel says 10^-50, see the
| | minus sign?
| |
| | Now tell me, where have I distorted anything from either of these
| | cited sources?
| |
| | And regarding the words of Harun Yahya on the work of Roger Penrose.
| |
| | Let me ask you again, where in the article I cited for the work of
| | Roger Penrose do you find the words "probability", "zero probability"
| | or "impossibility"?
| |
| | Here is the link again:
| |
| | http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
| |
| | And here is Harun Yahya's comment that follows the words he took from
| | Roger Penrose's work:
| |
| | "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| | "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
| |
| | So Harun Yahya misquotes Emil Borel.
| |
| | He then quotes a section of Roger Penrose's work.
| |
| | And finishes not with Roger Penrose's conclusion, but his own
| | conclusion.
| |
| | A conclusion based ultimately on a false assumption.
| |
| | That being:
| |
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | So how have I lied, or distorted anything?
| |
| | The burden of proof is on you now to defend your accusations.
| |
| | - Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
|
| Your distortion (and lie) is you distracting from the original point.
|
| First you said Penrose was wrong, THEN you claimed that a scientist such
as
| Penrose is using a deliberate distortion, when you saw these two tactics
did
| not work you proceed now to on and on about an insignificant piece of the
| article to AVOID addressing the fact that the mathmatical odds are
against
| the universe going BANG and being created. WHY is THAT.
|
| 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?

He will 100% deny the conclusions YOU attempt to draw from them.

Will such a brilliant man retract his work for a usenet k00ks that cannot
seen to work a news reader?

When you learn how to use a proper newsreader he may tell you.

Hahahahahahahah!! OH! Hhahahahahah!! MegaTonZ of laughter!!

|
| --
| Bob.
|

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

"adman" wrote
"weatherwax" wrote
| "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.
| 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
| enrose 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.

You obviously read about Penrose's lecture on a religious web site. That is
the worse place in the world to learn science.

Like many scientists and philosophers, Penrose first states the proplem, and
then propose his solotions. The computations which you refer to is given in
detail chapter 27 (page page 686) of Penrose's book "The Road to Reality".
The problem is now stated. The simplistic answer from your website is "God
did it". Penrose does not agree.

In chapter 28 (page 735), Penrose gives some of the attempted solotions
given by other scientists. This includes "symetry breaking", "inflationary
cosmology", and "the anthropic principle". In chapter 29 (page 782)
Penrose examines the foundations of quantum mechanics. Then in chapter 30
(page 816), Penrose gives his explanation based upon quantum-gravity. In
chapters 31, 32, and 33 Penrose expands upon those ideas.

I don't recommend "The Road to Reality" to somebody without a good math
background. However, you might read his book, "The Emperor's New Mind".

--Wax

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

Science can't do it. It can't predict anything precisely. It can
control a little. That is all.

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote
| | "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.
| | 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
| | enrose 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.
|
| You obviously read about Penrose's lecture on a religious web site. That
is
| the worse place in the world to learn science.
|
| Like many scientists and philosophers, Penrose first states the proplem,
and
| then propose his solotions. The computations which you refer to is given
in
| detail chapter 27 (page page 686) of Penrose's book "The Road to Reality".
| The problem is now stated. The simplistic answer from your website is
"God
| did it". Penrose does not agree.
|
| In chapter 28 (page 735), Penrose gives some of the attempted solotions
| given by other scientists. This includes "symetry breaking",
"inflationary
| cosmology", and "the anthropic principle". In chapter 29 (page 782)
| Penrose examines the foundations of quantum mechanics. Then in chapter 30
| (page 816), Penrose gives his explanation based upon quantum-gravity.
In
| chapters 31, 32, and 33 Penrose expands upon those ideas.
|
| I don't recommend "The Road to Reality" to somebody without a good math
| background. However, you might read his book, "The Emperor's New Mind".
|
| --Wax

So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?

I think not.

He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie




|
|
|

adman wrote:
"weatherwax" wrote in message
...

"adman" wrote
"weatherwax" wrote
"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.
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 enrose 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.

You obviously read about Penrose's lecture on a religious web site.
That is the worse place in the world to learn science.

Like many scientists and philosophers, Penrose first states the
proplem, and then propose his solotions. The computations which you
refer to is given in detail chapter 27 (page page 686) of Penrose's
book "The Road to Reality". The problem is now stated. The
simplistic answer from your website is "God did it". Penrose does
not agree.

In chapter 28 (page 735), Penrose gives some of the attempted
solotions given by other scientists. This includes "symetry
breaking", "inflationary cosmology", and "the anthropic principle".
In chapter 29 (page 782) Penrose examines the foundations of quantum
mechanics. Then in chapter 30 (page 816), Penrose gives his
explanation based upon quantum-gravity.
In
chapters 31, 32, and 33 Penrose expands upon those ideas.

I don't recommend "The Road to Reality" to somebody without a good
math background. However, you might read his book, "The Emperor's
New Mind".

--Wax

So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?

I think not.

He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie
"The entire point of doing the computations, was to find out how probable
the big bang was from the mathematical POV."

It is pointless to explain to adman that there is a huge difference between
a mathematician and a scientist.
Oddly enough he probably would not go to an astronomer to get his appendix
out or to a physicist to get his teeth cleaned.
He also probably thinks a mathematician can tell the difference between a
coffee cup and a doughnut.

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.

So when Harun Yahya said:

"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.

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

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:55:16 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote
| | "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.
| | 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
| | enrose 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.
|
| You obviously read about Penrose's lecture on a religious web site. That
is
| the worse place in the world to learn science.
|
| Like many scientists and philosophers, Penrose first states the proplem,
and
| then propose his solotions. The computations which you refer to is given
in
| detail chapter 27 (page page 686) of Penrose's book "The Road to Reality".
| The problem is now stated. The simplistic answer from your website is
"God
| did it". Penrose does not agree.
|
| In chapter 28 (page 735), Penrose gives some of the attempted solotions
| given by other scientists. This includes "symetry breaking",
"inflationary
| cosmology", and "the anthropic principle". In chapter 29 (page 782)
| Penrose examines the foundations of quantum mechanics. Then in chapter 30
| (page 816), Penrose gives his explanation based upon quantum-gravity.
In
| chapters 31, 32, and 33 Penrose expands upon those ideas.
|
| I don't recommend "The Road to Reality" to somebody without a good math
| background. However, you might read his book, "The Emperor's New Mind".
|
| --Wax

So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?

Taken out of context.

I think not.

You are correct, you have shown very clearly that you do not think.

He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie

What he proved is that they do.




|
|
|

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.