"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 6 Apr, 02:29, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| | "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
| |
| |
...
| | On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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
| |
| | Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you
cited.
| |
| | It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised
rather
| | than negative values.
| |
| | Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for
any
| | reason, other than to show it to be false.
| |
| | Sorry about having to tell you that.
| |
| | [chuckle]
| |
| | 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
| |
| | I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR
name
| is in
| | wikipedia!
| |
| | I stand corrected on one thing only.
| |
| | Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
| |
| | It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| | enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason
none
| | of his works are ever written under his real name.
| |
| | I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise
the
| | Creator's aim must have been."
| |
| | Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| | works, or websites that refer to his works.
| |
| | Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| | with this quotation.
|
| References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael
Denton,
| Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
|
| |
| | Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| | article is flawed is still correct.
| |
| | And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| | probability is not an impossibility.
| |
| | That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| | unable to accept.
| |
| | .- Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
| |
|
| Lets consider some information here.
|
| Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
| the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
|
| This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
| an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
| an event of negligible probability.
|
| Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
| probability".
|
| Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
| Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
| times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
|
| Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.

That is exactly what Penrose wrote. 1x 10- to the power of 123
|
| I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
| online:
|
|http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
| anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.

He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."




|
| So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
| Roger Penrose.

Incorrect. Here is another.
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...eginnings.html

|
| Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
| flawed.

Incorrect.

From your link:
V/W = 10^10^123.

This now tells us 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

as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the
figure

needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to
be
in no

way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already
become

accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's,
Einstein's)

which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch
(or
the

singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It
would

appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the
WEYL

part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we
appear
to find

is that there is a constraint

Nuff said.

Read the article again, and look for the words "zero probability", or
even the word "probability" or even the word "impossibility".

You wont find them.

Regarding Emil Borel's work and how Harun Yahya 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 (109) times the number of observations that humans
could make on those stars (1020)."

The component "10-50" reads as 10 to the power of MINUS 50.

Does Borel say that an event with a probability value that small is
impossible?

No he says that it is a "negligible event", which is not the same.

Therefore my assertion that Harun Yahya's article is flawed still
stands, and your assertion that it isn't remains unproven.

Incorrect. The man obviously poked a hole in big bang. Why deny it?
He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."

Here is another link with the same quote.
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...eginnings.html

Stubbornness is a good thing. Up to a point. After that point it is simply
denial

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.

--
Bob.

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.

--
Bob.

"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.


|
| --
| Bob.

"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.


|
| --
| Bob.

On 6 Apr, 10:15, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

| Lets consider some information here.
|
| Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
| the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
|
| This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
| an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
| an event of negligible probability.
|
| Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
| probability".
|
| Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
| Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
| times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
|
| Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.

That is exactly what Penrose wrote. 1x 10- to the power of 123
|
| I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
| online:
|
|http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
| anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.

He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."

Again you are quoting from an article based on Harun Yahya's works and
not directly from Roger Penrose's works.

"Extremely unlikely" is not the same as impossible.

Probability calculations always - when done correctly - come out to a
value between 1 and 0.

Which is why I say that Harun Yahya (I wonder why he doesn't produce
these works of his under his real name?) is completely wrong when he
says that an event with a probability value of 1 times 10 to the power
of 50 is a zero probability event.

Read the link I provided about Emil Borel and you will see what I
mean.

|
| So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
| Roger Penrose.

Incorrect. Here is another.http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...olution-beginn...

This is yet another page that quotes from Harun Yahya's works and not
Roger Penrose's.

|
| Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
| flawed.

Incorrect.

From your link:
V/W = 10^10^123.

This now tells us 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

as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the
figure

needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to
be
in no

way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already
become

accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's,
Einstein's)

which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch
(or
the

singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It
would

appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the
WEYL

part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we
appear
to find

is that there is a constraint

Nuff said.

Read the article again, and look for the words "zero probability", or
even the word "probability" or even the word "impossibility".

You wont find them.

Regarding Emil Borel's work and how Harun Yahya 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 (109) times the number of observations that humans
could make on those stars (1020)."

The component "10-50" reads as 10 to the power of MINUS 50.

Does Borel say that an event with a probability value that small is
impossible?

No he says that it is a "negligible event", which is not the same.

Therefore my assertion that Harun Yahya's article is flawed still
stands, and your assertion that it isn't remains unproven.

Incorrect. The man obviously poked a hole in big bang. Why deny it?
He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."

Here is another link with the same quote.http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...olution-beginn...

You are repeating yourself on two points in the same posting.

I will not repeat myself in the same way.


Stubbornness is a good thing. Up to a point. After that point it is simply
denial

I am not denying anything, your citations all point to websites that
quote from Harun Yahya's works, I have already shown that he has
misquoted Emil Borel, and misrepresented Roger Penrose's works.

I fail to see anything on your side that will convince me that Harun
Yahya, who doesn't even publish under his real name, is right in his
representation of these two people's works.

Especially when he refers to 1 times 10 to the power of 50 as being a
zero probability.

That is such a basic error.

And while we are here, the link you cited implies that Roger Penrose
said:

"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 second paragraph by its placement immediately after the first is
suggesting that Roger Penrose said this, but if you look at this
link:

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/ht...librium03.html

You will see it is a comment by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose.

I wont deny a degree of stubbornness on my part, but that is because I
know that I am right.

But I am not in denial of anything on this issue.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
"adman" wrote in
:

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.

No, he did not.


....

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.



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

In article ,
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.

In order to do this calculation you would need to (1) consider
some set of physical constants as describing a space of some
number of dimensions, (2) determine the probability density
function on that space, (3) determine what sub-volume of that
many-dimensional space describes universes that could support
life, and (4) integrate the probability density function over
the life-capable portion of that many-dimensional space.

To keep this simple I will limit myself to one question:

How do you determine the probability density function over the
space of possible settings of the physical constants?

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

adman wrote:
snip
Besides that, you shoot the messenger because of the message?

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

I thought his name was Penrose?
Penrose may be a scholar, but he is a mathamatician, not a scientist.

Years ago I fixed a window on an old truck for a friend's father. Simple
fix, it had come off track.
He was amazed at how little time it took and what a good mechanic I was.
I'm not. I can look under teh hood with the best of them but my knowledge is
limited and my hand eye coordination is poor. I can't pick the right nut and
have trouble with it after I do get it.
But he was amazed and he *was* in fact a very well noted surgeon.
He was so good that nobody ever said anything bad about his skills as a
cutter, but they hated and feared to work with him.
He screamed, cursed and threw sharp things.

A really good doctor who knew squat about cars thought I was a good
mechanic...

Adman, if you don't get it, I'm not surprised.