Still waiting to see why independence and probability distribution overturns the notion of a universal probability limit.

Sigh . . .

Returning to the first several posts, and noting first off a probability limit is the number of resources or opportunities for the event in question to occur.  In the case of a dice game the rules generally dictate the number of probablistic resources available for example one roll per turn in Monopoly unless you roll a double.  In this case the units are "roles of the dice per turn".

Now in looking at the number of probablistic resources available within the boundary of the (observable) universe, at a macro scale (since biological activity is exclusively non-quantum) the units are "events" or "interactions" or any other of a number of synonyms.  I will use "events".

This limit is a maximal limit and so I will consistently error on the side of more resources rather than less and will chose maximal values in each case.

1. The smallest macro paricle in this univese is an atom, the smallest atom being a hydrogen atom.  Therefore the formulation should be based on the maximal number of hydrogen atoms (all lacking neutrons) in the observable universe.  Cosmology has measured the gravitational forces and provided a maximal estimate of all energy and matter in the observable universe and when converted to hydrogen equivelents is slightly more than 10^81 hydrogen atoms.  Each atom reprents one particle: 1 particle/1 atom.  There is one universe in consideration.

( 1.4 * 10^81 atoms / 1 universe ) * ( 1 paricle / 1 atom )

Summary: 1.4 * 10^81 particles/universe

2. Each macro event in chemistry involves a collision between one or more atoms or molecules.  Again looking to the maximal number of events which will occur when the fewest particles are involved we have 2 paricles in each event or interaction.

( 2 particles / 1 event ) or the inverse, (1 event / 2 paricles )

Summary: 0.5 event/particle

3. Planck provided the basis to differentiate between macro and quantum effects in his group of related constants.  Planck distance is the maximal distance over which a QM effect occurs and therefore the minimal distance over which a macro event occurs.  In practice of course the distance is most often much much greater but again we are looking for the maximal number of events and therefore must consider the minimal distance.  The corresponding time associated with this distance is calculated by dividing by the speed of light in a vacuum (particles of course are limited to traveling no faster than the speed of light).

Planck time (sec) = Planck distance (meters) / Speed of light (meters / sec ) = 5.4 * 10^-44 sec

The maximal number of events (and therefore the highest frequency) will occur if and when all these particles are considered close packed with separation equal to one planck distance from one or more particle.  Under this circumstance, at most (likely far less than) one probablistic opportunity will occur whenever a particle has traveled one Plank distance at which time it may collide to produce an event, which will take at least one Planck time.

( 1 probablistic opportunity / event) / (5.4*10^-44 sec) = (1.9 *10^43 opportunity / event * sec )

Summary: 1.9 *10^43 opportunity/event*sec

4. The age of the universe is also estimated by cosmology.  The estimates are well documented so I will not repeat it. 

Age of (observable) Universe is no greater than (5*10^17 sec)


Putting this together in an increasingly more precise fashion despite the utter silliness of this exercise, we have:

(1.4*10^81 particles/universe) * (0.5 event/particle) * (1.9*10^43 opportunity/event*sec) * (5*10^17 sec) = 7*10^141 (probalistic) opportunity / (observable) universe

or about but certainly less than 10^150

Here is a thought experiment for you.  Begin with two atoms separated by one Planck distance then figure the maximum number of collisions per Planck time for ten cycles and describe how that maximum occurs.  Then add an atom and repeat.  Continue to do this noting the maximum number of of collisions possible.  You may be disappointed to learn that in the limit, the maximum is what I claim it is.

That's only two events in 1.25 Planck time.  But in any case you are being too cavalier.  How can this happen?  The three atoms are each one Planck distance from the other in a line and bounded by some force that prevents them from escaping but causes no collision (a necessary boundary condition).  Let's say two approach the center at light speed while the center approaches the left.  The center hits the left one at .5 Planck time and now moves right, hitting the right one at 1 Planck time moving left now hitting the left at 1.5 Planck time and the right at 2 Planck time.  That is 2/3 collisions per Planck time per particle.  If you play this out you will find in the limit it comes to exactly one.


Sorry barney you have erred again.

I see your error and your attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you have dug.  Put them in a triangle and you will see it makes very little difference.  The UPB is a culmination of all possible events over the entire life of the universe.  It makes no difference what distribution those events occur since they total to the same in the end.

You have not shown us anything valid on the subject of probability.  You are a false mathematician.

barney, I addressed that possibility by considering that the entire universe was close packed into one concentrated area.  My assumption is the extreme of concentration.  The practical UPB is much, much  lower than 10^150 because of the reality of the expanse of the universe, the fact that macroparticles don't travel very quickly and don't collide nearly as often as they possibly can.  Never the less, I am content to  use 10^150 giving materialism far more latitude than it deserves.

I posted the response to barney's last post here since it is yet another diversion

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=1150.0

Also want to remind barney I am Still waiting to see why independence and probability distribution overturns the notion of a universal probability limit as he claimed a few posts back.  I suggest he address that in the new post as well.

Wow, that's so big of you!

So, face it: you don't know.  What is the real number, RF?  Why round to some number that isn't even close to what you think it really is?  What purpose is that?  Your own staement make the UPB irrelevent: you are admitting that it isn't even close to what you think it is. So what if you claim it is much greater - you make lots of claims that you don't intend on backing up.  Is it greater? Who cares, right?, as long as you create a number that makes it possible for your other calculations to show that things must have been designed.

Again, you are pulling your numbers out of Dembski's ass and posting them.