adman wrote:
"weatherwax" wrote:
| 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?

Why do they write stuff such as that?

Obviously 'weatherwax' was saying what he did in fact say. Does
'adman' actually expect to fool anyone with his, "so you saying..."


--
--Bryan

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.

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

Probably not, but "such a brilliant man" is likely to tell the
truth as he sees it. Bob set himself up to be refuted if he's
wrong; so far his assertions stand.

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

And 'adman', no one here has tried to deny you your right laugh
as you will.


--
--Bryan

adman wrote:
Emil Borel says that an event with a probability of 10 to the power of
MINUS 50 is a "negligible event".

So shuffle an ordinary deck of 52 playing-cards really well -- really,
really, well. Next, look at the order of the cards. The odds of the
cards turning up in that particular order was one in 52-factorial,
which is a bit less than 10 to the power of MINUS 66. That's *less*
than odds just cited as a "negligible event".

How could we hit such a long odds? Well, obviously: we defined the
target *after* we took the shot.

The "probability of universe conducive to life" is similar. The
question of the odds against what happened is asked because of
what happened to happen.


--
--Bryan

"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?

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.

--
Bob.

John Baker wrote:

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.

I though mathematicians drank their coffee out of Klein bottles... G

"adman" wrote

So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?

I am saying that Penrose was delibertly quoted out of context.

I think not.

Those were Rene Descartes' last words.

He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie

But people use mumbers to lie. That is what's happening.

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

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:54:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

John Baker wrote:

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.

I though mathematicians drank their coffee out of Klein bottles... G

.
They used to until one day a mathematician said, "Fill it up."

Actually, you can drink from a Klein bottle.

Clifford Stoll was a Berkley astronomer whose first computer project
was to find why machine time accounting didn't balance and found
German hackers using Berkey as a bridge to hack into military
machines.

Now he makes and sells Klein bottles - including drinking mugs.

http://www.kleinbottle.com/drinking_...ein_bottle.htm

"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."


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

Now, go fix your news reader


|
| --
| Bob.
|

"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.
|
| 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

|
| 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.

--Adman
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And he shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the most High,.
and think to change times and laws... -
Daniel 7:25



|