"finite number of elements"  again you talk about a number of elements. This argument simply does not apply to dhammas.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 amIt does not matter. It is important that we have two sets with a finite number of elements, where each element is a possible event (dhamma arises, a letter is printed). This makes the theorem applicable to the Abhidhamma.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:05 am"Each dhamma from the list is like one of the buttons" ????
Do you think the dhammas described in abhidhamma are like elements in chemistry, where certain combination of them will produce a compound?
Abhidhamma does not talk about elemental imperishable dhammas. Each dhamma is dependently originated. That is the only analysis that is possible with dhammas.
Theravada against mathematics

 Posts: 914
 Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
 Location: Sri Lanka
Re: Theravada against mathematics
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

 Posts: 914
 Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
 Location: Sri Lanka
Re: Theravada against mathematics
One does not hammer out views with logic to attain samma ditti. One becomes conscious of the truth by way of wisdom. What do the become conscious of ;Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:41 amBuddha, possessing perfect wisdom, could not teach contradictions. Buddha could not teach that 2 + 2 = 5, etc.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:12 amI think you have missed the whole point of this teaching. This teaching is a method to go beyond all views and conceptions. For whatever views there are in the world are impermanent, dependently originated. If you cling to what is impermanent, suffering will be the result.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:31 am
There are only two options: either there is no beginning, or there is a beginning at the flow of dhammas. If the flow of dhammas has a beginning, then the first nonpermanent dhammas in the flow arise without kammic reasons. The emergence of nonpermanent dhammas without causes is impossible. The first moment of the flow of dhammas is impossible. So there is no beginning for the flow of dhammas. There are no other solutions.
Right views (without controversy) are needed for proper practice.
“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.
Whatever dhammas are subject to origination are all subject to cessation.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
The theorem applies to the Abhidhamma. Any list of dhammas consists of a finite number of elements.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:51 am"finite number of elements"  again you talk about a number of elements. This argument simply does not apply to dhammas.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 amIt does not matter. It is important that we have two sets with a finite number of elements, where each element is a possible event (dhamma arises, a letter is printed). This makes the theorem applicable to the Abhidhamma.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:05 am
"Each dhamma from the list is like one of the buttons" ????
Do you think the dhammas described in abhidhamma are like elements in chemistry, where certain combination of them will produce a compound?
Abhidhamma does not talk about elemental imperishable dhammas. Each dhamma is dependently originated. That is the only analysis that is possible with dhammas.
For example:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/sangaha.htm
121 Types of Consciousness.
121 is not infinity. And so with any list of dhammas.
In the same way as the number of letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks is of course  of course the number of dhammas. The typewriter buttons correspond to nonpermanent dhammas.

 Posts: 53
 Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am
Re: Theravada against mathematics
How about my Hilbert's Hotel point earlier? No matter how many check out the hotel always remains perfectly full. If you keep halving infinity day after day, well you are still left with infinity!Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:20 amThis does not change anything. Nibbana should have already manifested itself, since in the infinity of the past, the entire Path, from beginning to end, must have already passed.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:48 pmExactly. The path is not a path but not the way you understand it.
What is conditioned cannot become unconditioned. When the conditioned ceases, there is the unconditioned because the unconditioned was there all along. That is why there is no path but yet Nibbana can be 'arrived' at.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
We have a set with a finite set of elements, but not an infinite set! The number of varieties of dhammas, the number of varieties of printed characters is a finite set. The number of guests arriving at a hotel with an infinite number of rooms is a set of a finite number of elements. The number of possible combinations of a finite number of elements is finite.suaimhneas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:44 amHow about my Hilbert's Hotel point earlier? No matter how many check out the hotel always remains perfectly full. If you keep halving infinity day after day, well you are still left with infinity!Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:20 amThis does not change anything. Nibbana should have already manifested itself, since in the infinity of the past, the entire Path, from beginning to end, must have already passed.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:48 pm
Exactly. The path is not a path but not the way you understand it.
What is conditioned cannot become unconditioned. When the conditioned ceases, there is the unconditioned because the unconditioned was there all along. That is why there is no path but yet Nibbana can be 'arrived' at.
Shannon number great, but not infinite
Shannon number great, but not infinite. The number of possible combinations of a finite number of elements is not infinite. The number of chess pieces is limited. The number of dhammas in the Abhidhamma is limited. The number of combinations can not be infinite.
One chess game corresponds to one life. (No one lives forever. The game ends.)
A life without reaching Nibbana corresponds to a lost chess game. Life with the achievement of Nibbana corresponds to the won chess game. If it is possible to win this game, then such a chess game  life with the achievement of Nibbana  is included in the final set of all possible games. All possible chess games  all possible lives, all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas  should already be played in the infinity of the past.
One chess game corresponds to one life. (No one lives forever. The game ends.)
A life without reaching Nibbana corresponds to a lost chess game. Life with the achievement of Nibbana corresponds to the won chess game. If it is possible to win this game, then such a chess game  life with the achievement of Nibbana  is included in the final set of all possible games. All possible chess games  all possible lives, all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas  should already be played in the infinity of the past.
Re: Shannon number great, but not infinite
But the elements in Abhidhamma come in varying degrees of intensity. Dosa can be extremely mild or extreme hatred, and any shade in between...And so with other elements.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:13 amShannon number great, but not infinite. The number of possible combinations of a finite number of elements is not infinite. The number of chess pieces is limited. The number of dhammas in the Abhidhamma is limited. The number of combinations can not be infinite.

 Posts: 914
 Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
 Location: Sri Lanka
Re: Theravada against mathematics
You are trying to use your scientific training where it does not apply. 121 types of consciousness is not like elementary particles of physics. I gave you a simile of a flame. A flame is never the same. But one may differentiate, that is a log flame, that is a grass flame and so on. Similarly, 121 types of consciousness may be differentiated through wisdom.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:42 amThe theorem applies to the Abhidhamma. Any list of dhammas consists of a finite number of elements.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:51 am"finite number of elements"  again you talk about a number of elements. This argument simply does not apply to dhammas.
For example:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/sangaha.htm
121 Types of Consciousness.
121 is not infinity. And so with any list of dhammas.
In the same way as the number of letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks is of course  of course the number of dhammas. The typewriter buttons correspond to nonpermanent dhammas.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
Re: Shannon number great, but not infinite
But the number of new Dhammas, the cause of which will be Dosa, is limited. Dhammas are like chess pieces. The patterns of kamma are similar to the rules of the game. There is no infinite set of all possible moves of figures.robertk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:55 amBut the elements in Abhidhamma come in varying degrees of intensity. Dosa can be extremely mild or extreme hatred, and any shade in between...And so with other elements.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:13 amShannon number great, but not infinite. The number of possible combinations of a finite number of elements is not infinite. The number of chess pieces is limited. The number of dhammas in the Abhidhamma is limited. The number of combinations can not be infinite.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
Chess pieces are also different: some are made of wood, others are made of bone. But the number of all possible chess games is not infinite. Although it is very large. The number of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas in all possible lives is even greater (much more than the number of atoms in the universe we see) —but this number is not infinite.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:03 pmYou are trying to use your scientific training where it does not apply. 121 types of consciousness is not like elementary particles of physics. I gave you a simile of a flame. A flame is never the same. But one may differentiate, that is a log flame, that is a grass flame and so on. Similarly, 121 types of consciousness may be differentiated through wisdom.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:42 amThe theorem applies to the Abhidhamma. Any list of dhammas consists of a finite number of elements.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:51 am
"finite number of elements"  again you talk about a number of elements. This argument simply does not apply to dhammas.
For example:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/sangaha.htm
121 Types of Consciousness.
121 is not infinity. And so with any list of dhammas.
In the same way as the number of letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks is of course  of course the number of dhammas. The typewriter buttons correspond to nonpermanent dhammas.

 Posts: 914
 Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
 Location: Sri Lanka
Re: Theravada against mathematics
This is why I said you need to reconsider your understanding of dhamma. I gave you a simile of a flame but you insist on making it in to some thing static. Let's take a another example. Anger. How many times have you become angry in the past? You may recognise anger but it is never the same anger.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:16 pmChess pieces are also different: some are made of wood, others are made of bone. But the number of all possible chess games is not infinite. Although it is very large. The number of all possible sequences of combinations of dhammas in all possible lives is even greater (much more than the number of atoms in the universe we see) —but this number is not infinite.Srilankaputra wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:03 pmYou are trying to use your scientific training where it does not apply. 121 types of consciousness is not like elementary particles of physics. I gave you a simile of a flame. A flame is never the same. But one may differentiate, that is a log flame, that is a grass flame and so on. Similarly, 121 types of consciousness may be differentiated through wisdom.Germann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:42 am
The theorem applies to the Abhidhamma. Any list of dhammas consists of a finite number of elements.
For example:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/sangaha.htm
121 Types of Consciousness.
121 is not infinity. And so with any list of dhammas.
In the same way as the number of letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks is of course  of course the number of dhammas. The typewriter buttons correspond to nonpermanent dhammas.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati
“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.
Re: Theravada against mathematics
If you are to plot momentariness in space, representing momentariness by dots, how would you plot it?
Is the space finite or infinite?
Last edited by atipattoh on Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 Dhammanando
 Posts: 5417
 Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
 Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Theravada against mathematics
And I see that your posts to the two maths forums have failed to elicit even a single reply. This isn't at all surprising, for rather than trying to meet the mathematicians halfway, by presenting your query in terms comprehensible to those with no prior acquaintance with the niceties of Abhidhamma, you've simply copied and pasted your opening post in this thread. No wonder you got booted out of the physics forum!Germann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:07 pmThe thesis is mathematically correct. I brought it up for discussion by professionals.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/p ... em.967802/
UPD: "You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations".
They are not interested in discussing religion.
I wonder what's the probability of an online Englishspeaking maths enthusiast knowing what a sattapaññatti or an avijjamānapaññatti might be?
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta
Re: Theravada against mathematics
The main thing is that I am not at all afraid to discuss this all with mathematicians. I know that is right.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:04 pmAnd I see that your posts to the two maths forums have failed to elicit even a single reply. This isn't at all surprising, for rather than trying to meet the mathematicians halfway, by presenting your query in terms comprehensible to those with no prior acquaintance with the niceties of Abhidhamma, you've simply copied and pasted your opening post in this thread. No wonder you got booted out of the physics forum!Germann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:07 pmThe thesis is mathematically correct. I brought it up for discussion by professionals.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/p ... em.967802/
UPD: "You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations".
They are not interested in discussing religion.
I wonder what's the probability of an online Englishspeaking maths enthusiast knowing what a sattapaññatti or an avijjamānapaññatti might be?
 Dan74MkII
 Posts: 241
 Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am
Re: Theravada against mathematics
The question of whether in case of infinitely remote past (or infinite future), all possible events will have happened (will happen) is not new. Here, Germann is applying it to the Buddhadhamma. The case falls simply because it cannot be shown that all possible configurations will occur since the dhammas don't happen randomly but are causally related.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:04 pmAnd I see that your posts to the two maths forums have failed to elicit even a single reply. This isn't at all surprising, for rather than trying to meet the mathematicians halfway, by presenting your query in terms comprehensible to those with no prior acquaintance with the niceties of Abhidhamma, you've simply copied and pasted your opening post in this thread. No wonder you got booted out of the physics forum!Germann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:07 pmThe thesis is mathematically correct. I brought it up for discussion by professionals.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/p ... em.967802/
UPD: "You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations".
They are not interested in discussing religion.
I wonder what's the probability of an online Englishspeaking maths enthusiast knowing what a sattapaññatti or an avijjamānapaññatti might be?
Chess has been offered as an analogy. Imagine infinitely many players playing on infinitely many boards. Will every configuration happen? No, of course not. Some are simply too ridiculous and chess player would not make moves leading to them. Some may be too clever and no human chess player is capable of such levels of play. Infinitely many players would also mean that since there are (according to the OP) finitely many dhammas, there will be only finitely many distinct players, others will be copies. So he should change his favourite example to go with unlimited time, instead. But even then, causal dependence between states kills it.
But the point is that he is not interested in discussing, but in convincing. "He knows that it is right."