Theravada against mathematics

[Germann]

Hi Germann,

I don't know if you are familiar with the links of dependant origination.

But which dhammas in that process do you propose behaves probabilisticaly?

How do you propose to asign values to these dhammas?

If satta does not fully exist, there is no subject of free choice. Then there are not some freely selected events. Then all events are completely determined or random. The probability of a fully deterministic event is 1 - this is one of the options, a special case. Probability theory (in the same way as in physics) will explain all events.

I think you did not understand my question. Let's take an example link from DO. Let's take clinging(upadana). Are you proposing you can asign numerical values to upadana?

If no one really exists, if there is no subject of free choice, then all dhammas — like events in physics — become the subject of probability theory. (But in physics, all events begin with the Big Bang.) An event like upadana is possible. So, in the endless past, upadana necessarily happened, with probability = 1.

[Srilankaputra]

If satta does not fully exist, there is no subject of free choice. Then there are not some freely selected events. Then all events are completely determined or random. The probability of a fully deterministic event is 1 - this is one of the options, a special case. Probability theory (in the same way as in physics) will explain all events.

I think you did not understand my question. Let's take an example link from DO. Let's take clinging(upadana). Are you proposing you can asign numerical values to upadana?

If no one really exists, if there is no subject of free choice, then all dhammas — like events in physics — become the subject of probability theory. But in physics, all events begin with the Big Bang.

Let's take another dhamma from dependant origination. Consciousness. What does it mean that consciousness behaves probabilisticaly?

[Germann]

I think you did not understand my question. Let's take an example link from DO. Let's take clinging(upadana). Are you proposing you can asign numerical values to upadana?

If no one really exists, if there is no subject of free choice, then all dhammas — like events in physics — become the subject of probability theory. But in physics, all events begin with the Big Bang.

Let's take another dhamma from dependant origination. Consciousness. What does it mean that consciousness behaves probabilisticaly?

in the infinite past, the probability of this dhamma (this event) = 1.

[Srilankaputra]

So, in the endless past, upadana necessarily happened, with probability = 1.

why are surprised you are not enlightened then?

[Germann]

So, in the endless past, upadana necessarily happened, with probability = 1.

why are surprised you are not enlightened then?

Why is the Theravada system wrong? Because an infinite number of “monkeys” (past lives) would have “printed” the entire Path from beginning to end, to Nibbana. According to the theorem from the title topic. The infinite monkey theorem.

[Srilankaputra]

So, in the endless past, upadana necessarily happened, with probability = 1.

why are surprised you are not enlightened then?

Why is the Theravada system wrong? Because an infinite number of “monkeys” (past lives) would have “printed” the entire Path from beginning to end, to Nibbana. According to the theorem from the title topic. The infinite monkey theorem.

Not really, the chain of dhammas do not behave probabilisticaly. Only way for them to behave probabilisticaly is to randomly arise and cease. These are dhammas not numbers or letters. But if by chance one dhamma ceased whole chain is broken. There would be no need for a path.

[DNS]

The infinity of past lives follows from the kammа law. The first life meant the emergence of non-permanent dhammas without kammа reasons.

Which is it in your view? Infinite past lives or a first life? In any event, the Dhamma doesn't say either way, it says "no first beginning is discernible."

The probability of the existence of other civilizations is not equal to 1. (The material Universe and our planet have a beginning in time.) The probability that a possible event happened in an infinite series of past events (past dhammas) is 1.

Not yet P = 1 but perhaps around 0.7. The known universe is huge and many planets and solar systems have been identified. There may be some in the Goldilocks zone where it is just the right distance from their star to have life.

The material universe and our planet have a beginning in time, but what about before that? It is likely there were previous galaxies, even previous universes, previous big bangs, etc, expansion and contraction, super novas and re-evolving systems, over vast periods of time, we're talking billions of years or more.

[Dan74-MkII]

I discussed these issues with mathematicians. No objections.

Not quite. I am a mathematician and I have objections. I've outlined them in earlier posts that you did not reply to.

If you simply deny the mathematical theorem, what should I do? I can only offer to discuss this in the mathematical community.

What you could do is acquire the requisite background before making assertions. Results rest upon assumptions. You appear neither aware nor concerned about these assumptions.

[Sherab]

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.

This was what you wrote:

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. As the number of past lives is not limited, the probability of nibbanization in past lives is 1.

Nibbana should be already realized for the infinity of the past by all "people" without exception.

It seems to me that there is the fallacy of equivocation in your meaning of 'dhamma'. Your argument is valid only for conditioned dhammas. It is not valid for the unconditioned dhamma of Nibbana. Because Nibbana is unconditioned, it is not something that happened within dependent arising. With the cessation of all that is dependently arisen, Nibbana is unveiled. Nibbana is therefore said to be cessation (of all dependently arisen dhammas). Nibbana is the unbinding of all that bound sentient beings within the sphere of dependent arising.

Nibbana cannot 'happen' within the sphere of dependent arising. It can only 'happen' when you allow all that is dependently arisen to cease.

Mathematics provide valid results only within the axioms that give rise to it. Try to prove something that breaks the confines of the axioms and you will get into trouble.

The question you should ask yourself: Is Nibbana included within your definition of 'dhamma' in your argument?

[Germann]

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.

This was what you wrote:

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. As the number of past lives is not limited, the probability of nibbanization in past lives is 1.

Nibbana should be already realized for the infinity of the past by all "people" without exception.

It seems to me that there is the fallacy of equivocation in your meaning of 'dhamma'. Your argument is valid only for conditioned dhammas. It is not valid for the unconditioned dhamma of Nibbana. Because Nibbana is unconditioned, it is not something that happened within dependent arising. With the cessation of all that is dependently arisen, Nibbana is unveiled. Nibbana is therefore said to be cessation (of all dependently arisen dhammas). Nibbana is the unbinding of all that bound sentient beings within the sphere of dependent arising.

Nibbana cannot 'happen' within the sphere of dependent arising. It can only 'happen' when you allow all that is dependently arisen to cease.

Mathematics provide valid results only within the axioms that give rise to it. Try to prove something that breaks the confines of the axioms and you will get into trouble.

The question you should ask yourself: Is Nibbana included within your definition of 'dhamma' in your argument?

The manifestation of Nibbana after the completion of the whole Path is an event. When Nibbans are “touched by the body,” it happens to Arahant. This is a possible event. Its probability for the infinite past = 1.

My argument is not at all connected with what dhamma Nibbana is. It is enough that the achievement of Nibbana is a possible event.

[Germann]

Not quite. I am a mathematician and I have objections. I've outlined them in earlier posts that you did not reply to.

If you simply deny the mathematical theorem, what should I do? I can only offer to discuss this in the mathematical community.

What you could do is acquire the requisite background before making assertions. Results rest upon assumptions. You appear neither aware nor concerned about these assumptions.

My argument is mathematically correct. That you deny the validity of the theorem is another question (I understand that Theravada is really incompatible with it).

[Germann]

The infinity of past lives follows from the kammа law. The first life meant the emergence of non-permanent dhammas without kammа reasons.

Which is it in your view? Infinite past lives or a first life? In any event, the Dhamma doesn't say either way, it says "no first beginning is discernible."

The non-permanent dhamma necessarily has a kammic cause. Therefore, there can be no first impermanent dhamma (without reasons) or first life.

[Germann]

Not yet P = 1 but perhaps around 0.7.

Therefore, contact with an extraterrestrial civilization did not necessarily have to happen. The probability of its existence is less than 1, and the observation period is not unlimited.

[Germann]

why are surprised you are not enlightened then?

Why is the Theravada system wrong? Because an infinite number of “monkeys” (past lives) would have “printed” the entire Path from beginning to end, to Nibbana. According to the theorem from the title topic. The infinite monkey theorem.

Not really, the chain of dhammas do not behave probabilisticaly. Only way for them to behave probabilisticaly is to randomly arise and cease. These are dhammas not numbers or letters. But if by chance one dhamma ceased whole chain is broken. There would be no need for a path.

Since the subject of free choice does not exist, all events (all dhammas) are determined or random. Deterministic processes also have probability. Deterministic processes are also explained by the theory of probability. This is a specific, special case. In this topic, the strange thesis that probability theory applies exclusively to random events has been voiced many times. This is not true.

Any deterministic process, if such a process is possible, would have already completed beyond the infinity of the past.

[thang]

Why a mathematician can't go on a footbridge ?