DB> The idea that perfect chaos could not produce the order we see in the
 DB> universe does not preclude an infinite number of universes in which such
 DB> perfect order did not evolve.  We only need it to work out just right
 DB> *once*.
 DB> In fact, I would argue that we only need for the initial chaos to be
 DB> less than perfect at some point in time, or before time, for it to
 DB> avalanche into the order that we see.  Fifteen billion years or so is
 DB> enough time to do anything.  Given that much time, nothing is quite
 DB> unlikely, and something, such as we see, is likely.
 DB> Have a computer dither a fuzzy image, and you soon enough will see what
 DB> is there; feed it enough random data, and soon enough you can see
 DB> everything.
   Let me see if I understand you, Day.  Or you indicating that a computer is
a reasonable model or even the semblance of a model for the universe?  
   BTW, Day, how do you describe "perfect chaos?"  
   Also, I am not able to imagine "an infinite number of universes" unless 
he
word "universe" or "cosmos" means one thing to you and another to me.  I 
end,
with the ancients, to consider that the universe is not "spatially" closed.
By "universe" I would mean ALL THAT IS.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------