Theravada against mathematics

[Germann]

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.

Then Nibbana is unattainable for all who have not reached it in the infinite past.

[Germann]

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.

If reality contrary to the Theravada doctrine, this is the problem of Theravada. For me, there is no problem that events are still happening, because I do not share the views of Pali Abhidhamma.

[Germann]

Well done, O Great and Powerful Refuter. Your nonsense has convinced us all. DNS, lets shut it down, its over, Germann has arrived.

In ancient India, the loser dispute became the pupil of the winner. Whoever this winner is.

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.

No, Germann.

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.

If there is no subject of free choice and there are no random events, then all events are totally deterministic. If the deterministic algorithm does not contain the achievement of Nibbana in an infinite set of steps, then Nibbana is unattainable. I do not argue with the fact that in this case the same cycles can be repeated an infinite number of times.

[Ceisiwr]

Germann

Then Nibbana is unattainable for all who have not reached it in the infinite past.

Nibbana isn't a dhamma, so its not part of the infinite set of possibilities within the "chain" (awkward word) of dhammas.

[cappuccino]

If there is no subject of free choice and there are no random events

karma is based on intention (choice)

[Germann]

As mentioned before, I see where you were coming from and I have also mentioned where I disagreed with you.

If we attribute the free choice to a separate, conditioned dhamma, making it a subject, then regardless of the moral choice, the fate of all the subjects is the same — the termination. There is no kammic reward for dhammas.

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.

If there is no free choice, then all events are either random or deterministic. If there are random events, the entire Path to Nibbana should be already “printed” for an endless past (the title post). If there are no random events, then all events are totally deterministic. Deterministic algorithm, whose steps have already been carried out in the infinite past. If Nibbana is possible, all steps towards it must be realized for an infinite past. If Nibbana is impossible, the algorithm infinitely repeats the events of samsara, there is no way out of samsara.

[cappuccino]

If there is no free choice, then all events are either random or deterministic.

there is free choice, you've chosen to come here and argue

[Germann]

Germann

Then Nibbana is unattainable for all who have not reached it in the infinite past.

Nibbana isn't a dhamma, so its not part of the infinite set of possibilities within the "chain" (awkward word) of dhammas.

There is no difference, because reaching Nibbana is a sequence of combinations of dhammas.

[cappuccino]

because reaching Nibbana is a sequence of combinations of dhammas.

wrong

[budo]

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.

If reality contrary to the Theravada doctrine, this is the problem of Theravada. For me, there is no problem that events are still happening, because I do not share the views of Pali Abhidhamma.

What?

[Germann]

Try to imagine mathematically how an event that has a probability other than zero (even if it is infinitely small) did not happen in an infinite period of time. If there is no subject of free choice who chooses events.

Try to imagine mathematically how a deterministic event (in the event that there is neither freedom of choice nor random events) did not happen in an infinite number of steps of the deterministic algorithm.

Post your theses on the math forum, and give here a link.

It does not work out mathematically.. This is just absurd.

[Ceisiwr]

Try to imagine mathematically how an event that has a probability other than zero (even if it is infinitely small) did not happen in an infinite period of time. If there is no subject of free choice who chooses events.

Try to imagine mathematically how a deterministic event (in the event that there is neither freedom of choice nor random events) did not happen in an infinite number of steps of the deterministic algorithm.

Post your theses on the math forum, and give here a link.

It does not work out mathematically.. This is just absurd.

Didn't the Buddha teach that there is a choice involved within the system?

[cappuccino]

It does not work out mathematically. This is just absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anantarika-karma

[Germann]

because reaching Nibbana is a sequence of combinations of dhammas.

wrong

And what is real except the dhammas and their combinations?

[Germann]

Try to imagine mathematically how an event that has a probability other than zero (even if it is infinitely small) did not happen in an infinite period of time. If there is no subject of free choice who chooses events.

Try to imagine mathematically how a deterministic event (in the event that there is neither freedom of choice nor random events) did not happen in an infinite number of steps of the deterministic algorithm.

Post your theses on the math forum, and give here a link.

It does not work out mathematically.. This is just absurd.

Didn't the Buddha teach that there is a choice involved within the system?

I am not talking here about the Buddha, but about the Pali school Abhidhamma.