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.
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?
10^142 rounded to 10^150 is a maximal limit 150 is an easy to remember number that I have used before and so continued with it to avoid a silly claim that I am changing the numbers. It is a practical number that serves the purpose well and is intended to avoid needless debate about uncertainties. Every advantage is given to material mechanisms with this number. We can certaily use more precise numbers but it would not make any practical difference and it would be a waste of time to improve on the precision.
Your own staement make the UPB irrelevent: you are admitting that it isn't even close to what you think it is.
It is a maximal limit. Such is the nature of maximal limits. It gives every advantage possible to materialistic processes.
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.
I provided the basis, the values and the equations. How can you say with a straight face that I am not backing up my claim?
