Theravada against mathematics

[DooDoot]

The concept of a living being (satta-pannatti) is the concept of a non-existent (avijjamana-pannatti)....

(5) Concept of the existent based on the existent, e.g. “eye-contact,” both “eye” and “contact” being existent.

(6) Concept of the non-existent based on the non-existent, e.g. “banker’s son,” both being non-existent.

"Pannatti" appears to be simply about "definitions" or "concepts". This appears consistent with the suttas that say "a being" ("satta") is merely a "view" ("diṭṭhigata"), "word" ("sadda") & "convention" ("sammuti").

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘being’?
“Kiṃ nu sattoti paccesi,

Māra, is this your theory?
māra diṭṭhigataṃ nu te;

This is just a pile of conditions,
Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṃ,

you won’t find a being here.
nayidha sattupalabbhati.

When the parts are assembled
Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,

we use the word ‘chariot’.
hoti saddo ratho iti;

So too, when the aggregates are present
Evaṃ khandhesu santesu,

‘being’ is the convention we use.
hoti sattoti sammuti.

SN 5.10

Therefore, I still remain confused about how the above dhammas are related to your topic, which appears to be about reincarnation or similar.

[chownah]

The probability of detecting an event in an infinite series of events is either 1 or 0. If the achievement of Nibbana refers to possible events, it must be found in an infinite series of past events: the probability of finding It in the past is 1.

I think you are wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by "detecting an event" but I will continue:
Suppose that the infinite series of past events is a stream of the counting numbers in order. (counting numbers being 1,2,3,4....the numbers you count with) Suppose that the event is an even number so detecting an event means picking an even number. The probability of picking an even number out of an ordered stream of counting numbers is 50%

I may be missing something about what you posted and if so I would be glad for an explanation.
chownah

[Germann]

Therefore, I still remain confused about how the above dhammas are related to your topic, which appears to be about reincarnation or similar.

Mereological nihilism, total negation of satta. Dhammas exist, satta does not exist.

[Germann]

Suppose that the infinite series of past events is a stream of the counting numbers in order. (counting numbers being 1,2,3,4....the numbers you count with) Suppose that the event is an even number so detecting an event means picking an even number. The probability of picking an even number out of an ordered stream of counting numbers is 50%

The probability that an even number was selected in the infinite past is 1. Similarly, with the probability of a sequence of combinations of dhammas leading to Nibbana. If such a combination of dhammas is possible, if its probability is greater than zero, then in an infinite number of past combinations the probability of its detection is 1. The probability of an event in an infinite number of events is either 1 or 0. If an event is possible, it happens with a probability of 1 - it happens necessarily.

[Germann]

The probability of detecting an event in an infinite series of events is either 1 or 0. If the achievement of Nibbana refers to possible events, it must be found in an infinite series of past events: the probability of finding It in the past is 1.

But how infinite is that infinite series of past events? What's finite and infinite cannot be the same constant for 2 different people. So when you say finite/infinite, you'll also have to say 'in relative to whom'? For the Buddha, MahaKasyapa, Ananda, Moggallana, Rahula, and many many other noble disciples, of course it's already been finite. But for you and me, maybe our infinite previous lives are still only a blink of an eye compared to the length of an infinite infinite infinite subsequent future lives before we reach the same destination as the Buddha and His noble disciples.

With respect to any flow from the dhammas on which the concept of a living being superimposes, in the past there will be an infinite number of dhammas of that flow. Any stream of dhammas has no beginning. Therefore, each stream - being an endless succession of events - should already contain the achievement of Nibbana. The number of "monkeys" (past lives) in each case, without exception, is infinite. In each case, without exception, the "monkeys" should have already "printed" that sequence of combinations of their dhammas, which ends with Nibbana.

[Germann]

Kolmogorov's zero–one law, Infinite monkey theorem, infinitely low-probability is not a zero probability.

[Sherab]

If the Path does not end with the attainment of Nibbana, then Nibbana is unreachable.

The universe does not have an end, the path does have an end, Nibbana does not have a start or an end nor beginning, neither both and neither not both.

The flow of conditioned dhammas must stop. And the number of past lives - segments of this stream in the past - is infinite. The number of "monkeys" is infinite, and they should have already "printed" the termination algorithm.

Your argument is fine if nibbana is a conditioned dhamma. But it is not. It is unborn, unmade, unfabricated.

[chownah]

Suppose that the infinite series of past events is a stream of the counting numbers in order. (counting numbers being 1,2,3,4....the numbers you count with) Suppose that the event is an even number so detecting an event means picking an even number. The probability of picking an even number out of an ordered stream of counting numbers is 50%

The probability that an even number was selected in the infinite past is 1. Similarly, with the probability of a sequence of combinations of dhammas leading to Nibbana. If such a combination of dhammas is possible, if its probability is greater than zero, then in an infinite number of past combinations the probability of its detection is 1. The probability of an event in an infinite number of events is either 1 or 0. If an event is possible, it happens with a probability of 1 - it happens necessarily.

I think your concept of "detecting an event" is something outside the scope of what I presented.
chownah

[Germann]

Suppose that the infinite series of past events is a stream of the counting numbers in order. (counting numbers being 1,2,3,4....the numbers you count with) Suppose that the event is an even number so detecting an event means picking an even number. The probability of picking an even number out of an ordered stream of counting numbers is 50%

The probability that an even number was selected in the infinite past is 1. Similarly, with the probability of a sequence of combinations of dhammas leading to Nibbana. If such a combination of dhammas is possible, if its probability is greater than zero, then in an infinite number of past combinations the probability of its detection is 1. The probability of an event in an infinite number of events is either 1 or 0. If an event is possible, it happens with a probability of 1 - it happens necessarily.

I think your concept of "detecting an event" is something outside the scope of what I presented.
chownah

The infinite monkey theorem: “The probability that an infinite number of monkeys will print any given text on the first attempt is 1”. Here a "monkey" is the past life. A "text" is a sequence of combinations of dhammas, culminating in the realization of Nibbana.

[Germann]

The universe does not have an end, the path does have an end, Nibbana does not have a start or an end nor beginning, neither both and neither not both.

The flow of conditioned dhammas must stop. And the number of past lives - segments of this stream in the past - is infinite. The number of "monkeys" is infinite, and they should have already "printed" the termination algorithm.

Your argument is fine if nibbana is a conditioned dhamma. But it is not. It is unborn, unmade, unfabricated.

Not. My argument is that Nibbana is possible, Nibbana happens, Nibbana manifests itself. The probability of manifestation of Nibbana is not zero.

[DooDoot]

Mereological nihilism, total negation of satta.

The Buddha was falsely accused of exactly the same as above in MN 22. The Pali suttas (SN 5.10; SN 23.2) say "satta" is a "view".

Dhammas exist, satta does not exist.

I agree with this. But appears to contradict the other statement you made about "mereological nihilism".

The probability of manifestation of Nibbana is not zero.

Stories of past Buddhas were put into the Digha Nikaya, which receives lots of criticism from scholars. Personally, I don't believe there were any past Buddhas because, generally, in these stories, the technology & society was the same all those thousands of years before as it was in 230BC, when those stories were probably written. Regardless, even if those stories are true, there were so few Buddhas. Just examine today's 7,000,000,000 world population. What % of Arahants?

[Germann]

Dhammas exist, satta does not exist.

I agree with this. But appears to contradict the other statement you made about "mereological nihilism".

Denial of the existence of the whole (satta) when affirming the existence of parts (dhammas) is mereological nihilism.

[DooDoot]

Denial of the existence of the whole (satta) when affirming the existence of parts (dhammas) is mereological niligism.

Satta is not "the whole". "Satta" is a "delusion". "Kaya" means "the whole collection of five aggregates". Imputing "self" or "a being" on the whole of those five aggregates is a "delusion". The above "mereological niligism" is non-sequitur.

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

[Germann]

Denial of the existence of the whole (satta) when affirming the existence of parts (dhammas) is mereological nihilism.

Satta is not "the whole". "Satta" is a "delusion". "Kaya" means "the whole collection of five aggregates". Imputing "self" or "a being" on the whole of those five aggregates is a "delusion". The above "mereological niligism" is non-sequitur.

=

This is called Mereological nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism

The problem is that the negation of the subject of free choice reduces all explanations of past events to the theory of probability.

[DooDoot]

This is called elementological nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism

No. Regardless, it is unrelated to Buddhism. The impression is i reduced this whole topic to irrelevancy because "satta" is merely "pannatti", i.e., conceptual definitions or views rather than "living beings".