Well done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.
Theravada against mathematics
- Pseudobabble
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
- Location: London
Re: Here Theravada is refuted
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19
'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19
'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
The countable set of all possible lives
In ancient India, the loser dispute became the pupil of the winner. Whoever this winner is.Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:16 amWell done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.
You will not do anything with the mathematical fact that the countable set of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas (the countable set of all possible lives) fit in an infinite set of moments of the past. It does not matter if there are random events or there are no random events.
http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/34 ... ments.html
A countable set is the "smallest" among infinite sets.
- Dan74-MkII
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am
Re: The countable set of all possible lives
No, Germann.Germann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:36 amIn ancient India, the loser dispute became the pupil of the winner. Whoever this winner is.Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:16 amWell done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.
You will not do anything with the mathematical fact that the countable set of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas (the countable set of all possible lives) fit in an infinite set of moments of the past. It does not matter if there are random events or there are no random events.
http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/34 ... ments.html
A countable set is the "smallest" among infinite sets.
In order to build up a mathematical argument, you need to proceed in logical steps from the start to the finish. You started with an 'infinite monkey' example that assumes random moves. Nicholas objected right away that actions and dhammas do not proceed randomly. Since then you have thrown many things into the mix - countability, probability of deterministic events (?), fitting and including... All of these are either irrelevant or sheer nonsense and none constitute an actual argument, a connected logical sequence that leads from the premise to conclusion.
Apart from your questionable assumptions, mathematically you have no proof. No argument. Because when it comes to causally connected events, which in probabilistic terms is dependence, there is simply no way to prove that a process that is run infinitely many times will include any given sequence of dhammas. We have tried to illustrate this to you many many times. But you are either not interested or not capable of understanding what we have said.
Many of us have tried to help, some have given you benefit of doubt that maybe you do have an idea behind it all and are just not expressing it well. But I don't think so.
I agree, it's time to shut this down and not waste any more time with it.
Re:
I was answering this part of your post: "If, however, we consider liberation (Nibbana) a simple cessation, any subject, regardless of his moral path, reaches Nibbana by death."
As regards free choice, I don't think there is such a thing. There is choice, but there is no free choice. Choice makes sense only in relation to sentient beings but not the Buddha.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
Debunking his argument is quite simple.
He claims in an infinite universe anything that could happen already has happened. Well, then by making that statement he already disproves himself, for an event has to happen at some point in time, and so there will be people experiencing that event as it is happening, but according to him that's not possible as it must have already happened. Therefore he puts himself in a logical paradox, in which case nothing ever happens.
The truth is that there are cyclical mechanisms aka rounds. That's why I asked him about the black holes taking in all matter, as according to his theory if everything that could happen already happened, then the Earth should have been swallowed by a black hole by now. He can't answer that, and until he does answer it, he won't be able to explain Nibbana, but that will never happen.
He claims in an infinite universe anything that could happen already has happened. Well, then by making that statement he already disproves himself, for an event has to happen at some point in time, and so there will be people experiencing that event as it is happening, but according to him that's not possible as it must have already happened. Therefore he puts himself in a logical paradox, in which case nothing ever happens.
The truth is that there are cyclical mechanisms aka rounds. That's why I asked him about the black holes taking in all matter, as according to his theory if everything that could happen already happened, then the Earth should have been swallowed by a black hole by now. He can't answer that, and until he does answer it, he won't be able to explain Nibbana, but that will never happen.
Re:
It might be easier to see that it may not be true if you look at a time line that is from now to the infinite future and a time line that is 100 years from now to the infinite future. Is the cardinality of the the former greater than the latter? I don't think so since whatever chain of event that can occur in the former portion can also occur in the latter portion because both time line are infinite.
Re: Clarification
Do you agree that the achievement of Nibbana should have happened in the past, because set of the moments of the past are infinite? I have given you my answer previously, and it was a NO. Why? Because as I mentioned previously, Nibbana is not an event in the realm of conditioned phenomena.Germann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:53 amDo you agree that the achievement of Nibbana should have happened in the past, because set of the moments of the past are infinite? If you agree, I have nothing to argue about. I argued only with the "fact" that the achievement of Nibbana may be in the second part of the events, but not in the endless past.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:31 am Implication of (2):
Assume that the realization of Nibbana refers to possible events.
Assume also that all possible events can only exist within the beginningless chain of conditioned dhammas.
If we divide the chain of conditioned dhammas into a portion that is beginningless until now and a portion that is from now to the some future point in time, then the first portion is must be infinite, since it is beginningless. If it is infinite, then Nibbana as an event must be somewhere in that portion.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
His argument is logically correct.budo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:06 pm Debunking his argument is quite simple.
He claims in an infinite universe anything that could happen already has happened. Well, then by making that statement he already disproves himself, for an event has to happen at some point in time, and so there will be people experiencing that event as it is happening, but according to him that's not possible as it must have already happened. Therefore he puts himself in a logical paradox, in which case nothing ever happens.
The truth is that there are cyclical mechanisms aka rounds. That's why I asked him about the black holes taking in all matter, as according to his theory if everything that could happen already happened, then the Earth should have been swallowed by a black hole by now. He can't answer that, and until he does answer it, he won't be able to explain Nibbana, but that will never happen.
Because his argument is logically correct, you can only find fault with the premises of his arguments. To properly address his argument, you have to understand the premises behind his argument. I tried to lay out the premises of his arguments here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33879&start=450#p509246
Re: Theravada against mathematics
Sherab
I'll admit I don't quite understand this?
I'll admit I don't quite understand this?
Implication of (1):
If you hold the belief of beginningless chain of conditioned dhammas, then any ability to select an event must necessarily be an emergent phenomenon of the begninningless chain of conditioned dhammas. This means that any self with an ability to make choices must be an emergent phenomenon of the beginningless chain of conditioned dhammas. Taken to its logical conclusion, the tenet of cessation would lead to a tenet of annihilation. Such a tenet would be the same as the tenet of non-existent of satta.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Theravada against mathematics
In terms of infinity, could it be that extinquishment hasn't occurred for all beings since beings, hindered by ignorance, can only make choices within a narrow set of parameters unless they hear the Dhamma, thus limiting the number of potential outcomes? So, given infinite time everything that can happen has within a certain set of parameters. Nibbana, being outside this set of parameters, hasn't happened for all beings.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Theravada against mathematics
karma is based on choicesSherab wrote: As regards free choice, I don't think there is such a thing.
as in I choose to & intend to do X
- Pseudobabble
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
- Location: London
Re: The countable set of all possible lives
Well, then its a pity we aren’t in ancient India, and that you haven’t won anything. A pity for you, that is.Germann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:36 amIn ancient India, the loser dispute became the pupil of the winner. Whoever this winner is.Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:16 amWell done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.
You will not do anything with the mathematical fact that the countable set of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas (the countable set of all possible lives) fit in an infinite set of moments of the past. It does not matter if there are random events or there are no random events.
http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/34 ... ments.html
A countable set is the "smallest" among infinite sets.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19
'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19
'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
The countable set of all possible lives
It seems to you.Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pmWell, then its a pity we aren’t in ancient India, and that you haven’t won anything. A pity for you, that is.Germann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:36 amIn ancient India, the loser dispute became the pupil of the winner. Whoever this winner is.Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:16 am
Well done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.
You will not do anything with the mathematical fact that the countable set of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas (the countable set of all possible lives) fit in an infinite set of moments of the past. It does not matter if there are random events or there are no random events.
http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/34 ... ments.html
A countable set is the "smallest" among infinite sets.
Mathematically, I have everything correctly, and I want as many mathematicians as possible to participate in the discussion.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Theravada against mathematics
schism
noun
a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
noun
a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
Last edited by cappuccino on Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.