nirvana mathematically not possible

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Miorita »

Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:30 pm See if this one works:

Image

:namaste: Virgo
It may.
It is
The lagrangian lorentz inverient . This describes all known observable physical phenomenon except gravity so they say? The universe written down on paper apparently.
pinterest.com/pin/507780926711160944/

Refreshing the material:
In each case, a mathematical function called the Lagrangian is a function of the generalized coordinates, their time derivatives, and time, and contains the information about the dynamics of the system. No new physics are necessarily introduced in applying Lagrangian mechanics compared to Newtonian mechanics.
Derivatives - yes, it has! See the delta symbol everywhere in the statement!
Dynamics of the ssytem - yes, it is a system given de coordinates after which the derivatives are written!
Lorentz invariance:
Lorentz invariance expresses the proposition that the laws of physics are the same for different observers, for example, an observer at rest on Earth or one who is rotated through some angle, or traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer at rest.
It has to do with the Lorentz transform when you notice first time that one of the subjects has more time or that there is some variance of time usually written down with capital delta between the 2 observers. How can that be: one is young and one is old? Isn't it odd?

This transform I met befote we were to learn quantum physics, or the theory of relativity of which Nikola Tesla said that it's mathematical garb.

When you see the time making donuts before you, ie. inflating and deflating itself, what's your expectation?
When beautiful magnificent light comes to you and sometimes is energy, sometimes is a particle, it vibrates nicely before your eyes and then it dissappears. :smile:

I mean why not? I believe in teleportation, I believe in whatever you say. We can pick 1 grain of sand at a time because we are very focussed not missing and picking 2 grains at once. Can you imagine a bigger disaster than that? I'm not laughing, I'm having a :techproblem: a tech problem where tech is being abused.

So what do you want with this "lagrangian" Virgo? It's yours, you produced it!
Take it with you when you leave! I want to die a happy person. :lol:
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by DNS »

BillSocrate wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:17 pm Let me try differently.
My interpretation of Thevara:
1. Sentinent beings are finite - you just transforming - cat to pig to human to pig so on.
See the quote from above, Theravada does not say sentient beings are finite nor infinite.
If these beings are growing then we will bust the Universe.
How do you know this? Are you an astrophysicist?

You haven't answered my chess analogy response. How are certain animals / beings on another planet going to attain enlightenment, if they don't have the cognitive level to do so? You might say the other animals get reborn as humans and then attain nirvana; but as that happens, there are still animals / other beings procreating on earth and other planets. And then you might say that the beings are finite, but that hasn't been determined, nor stated by Buddhism.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by DNS »

He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by – one birth, or two or three or four or five births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50, a 100 or a 1,000 or a 100,000 births, through many cycles of cosmic contraction and cosmic expansion . . . Now there comes a time, when sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period of contraction, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been re-born in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, dwelling in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. Now there comes also a time, friends, when sooner or later, this universe begins to re-evolve by expansion.” (Brahmajala Sutta, Digha Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka)
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Kai lord »

BillSocrate wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:17 pm According to Thevara Bud:
1. Nirvana - you reach, you are absolutely gone. No more life, no rebirth. Discussion close. Pls don't bring in Tibetan, they believe in rebirth forever.
No Tibetan Buddhism doesn't teach rebirth forever. There were records of Tibetan practitioners who attained Arhathood.

According to Theravada, rebirth for those Arhats should be impossible, right? So why do they contradict themselves?

:P

My interpretation of Thevara:
1. Sentinent beings are finite - you just transforming - cat to pig to human to pig so on. If these beings are growing then we will bust the Universe.

There are so many teachings that some guy was evil killed his father but after he served the hell (can't define it, may be a life of hell, animal, being poor, with dease so on), with some good karma, he met Buddha and he reached Nirvana

Given that, I believe some day, everybody will reach Nirvana and there will be an empty Universe.

Questions:
1. Given infinite time, shouldn't all of us reach Nirvana and the Universe is empty by now?
2. Are we going to be an empty Universe in the future since we have infinite time?
Again why do you think the suttas only teach one trichiliocosm?

Theravadin teachers tend to focus on our current universe only because they don't want their students to over speculate on multiveses and waste their time thinking about one of fourteen unknowables.

Universes being infinite in size and lasts infinitely being two of the 14 questions that the Buddha refused to answer.

Your questions belong to those two categories
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by muni »

Few quotes by Shechen Gyalsap,

"All phenomena remain in the expanse;
Of beginningless time;
Since this is the case;
All sentient beings can achieve nirvana.

Buddha- nature is immaculate.
It is profound, serene, unfabricated suchness,
An uncompounded expanse of luminosity;
Non-arising, unceasing, primordial peace,
Spontaneously present nirvana.

Just as sesame oil pervades sesame seeds,
The essence of the tathagatas
Is primordially present and inseparable from
The basis state of all beings."

Always present, even while there is dream.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

There is something fundamental that is being completely missed in this conversation. There are no “beings”. There are only the conditions for the experience of ‘being’ to arise in awareness. There are no numbers to count.

It’s like asking “how many horn blasts are there?”
A horn blast occurs when the conditions occur for the sound to come out of a horn. The number is infinite because there are an infinite number of conditions for horns to be known

Likewise, “beings” are only the appearances that occur in awareness when the cause for that appearance occurs. As long as the causes for the appearance of the becoming of ‘beings’ occurs, there will be the apparent becoming of beings.

Liberation from becoming (nirvana) is simply the cessation of causes pertaining to a particular streak of awareness.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Miorita »

DNS wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:09 am
BillSocrate wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:17 pm Let me try differently.
My interpretation of Thevara:
1. Sentinent beings are finite - you just transforming - cat to pig to human to pig so on.
See the quote from above, Theravada does not say sentient beings are finite nor infinite.
If these beings are growing then we will bust the Universe.
How do you know this? Are you an astrophysicist?

You haven't answered my chess analogy response. How are certain animals / beings on another planet going to attain enlightenment, if they don't have the cognitive level to do so? You might say the other animals get reborn as humans and then attain nirvana; but as that happens, there are still animals / other beings procreating on earth and other planets. And then you might say that the beings are finite, but that hasn't been determined, nor stated by Buddhism.
Stop being a cat, Dave! And stop transforming! :bow:

Observe the sequence: cat, pig, human, pig, ...!
There is the subsequence, {pig, pig..., and probably next pair has another pig in it.

Bill is calling out pigs. His piece of writing does not even have proper Grammar. Mine has neither. I should take a break here, "Theravada".

Of course, one accidental typing of the works of Shakespeare does not stand for enlightenment.
And the Universe cannot go into a second Big Bang because all condensed consciousness wants to shift through time to the moment of the original Big Bang to make it look like a second one. It cannot have 2 Big Bangs. When you have already experienced that, it's a virus.
I hope it asnwers the question.

The gain is that you have an accidental typing of the works of Shakespeare. If there is one smart monkey which not only washes its fruit of sand but also is smart enough to let its subconscious teach her/him/they what to read and also be careful with the book, then there is a chance. It can touch the book by mistake to its forehead meaning 'I have to get this in here' et voila: a Buddha is on his way!
If you let the coincidence happen, it's a happy accident.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by DNS »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:34 pm There is something fundamental that is being completely missed in this conversation. There are no “beings”. There are only the conditions for the experience of ‘being’ to arise in awareness. There are no numbers to count.
True, I thought about mentioning that too, but felt the OP might transform the conversation into another "what is reborn?" The OP is apparently assuming soul-theory and counting souls. Buddhism = anatta / anatman.
PeterC
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by PeterC »

DNS wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:26 pm The OP is a question that has been going around the internet on buddhist forums for several years now. The question is basically something like:

"If we have all lived infinite lives, we should have all been enlightened by now, since with infinite lives, there are infinite possibilities, therefore, why haven't we all been already enlightened and in nirvana by now?"
This is a better question. But there are a few issues:

1. The Buddhist cosmology, in all traditions, admits the possibility of multiple systems of worlds. So we are not limited to a single observable universe. Both the Buddhist and the empirical cosmologies posit a universe with a beginning and an end, and posit multiple such universes arising.

2. The theravedan arhat is a non-relapsing state. Other traditions consider it to have the possibility of relapsing.

3. The question posed above is only valid if the number of sentient beings is static or decreasing. The question doesn’t apply if it is potentially increasing.

4. “Infinite time” is a difficult concept. If we take it at face value (and not get into things like time-like and space-like singularities) we have the problem that time as a concept does not exist in empirical cosmology prior to the Big Bang. Time is a local phenomenon.

5. Often in premodern texts “infinite” is used in an imprecise sense, meaning “inconceivably large”, which could be uncountable infinite, countable infinite, or finite but immeasurable.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Miorita »

I liked OP's number one music.
Sounded like Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Swaha.
Extinguished, anihilated, gone, and no Tibetan Buddhism was implied. :lol:
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Kim O'Hara »

DNS wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 10:37 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:34 pm There is something fundamental that is being completely missed in this conversation. There are no “beings”. There are only the conditions for the experience of ‘being’ to arise in awareness. There are no numbers to count.
True, I thought about mentioning that too, but felt the OP might transform the conversation into another "what is reborn?" The OP is apparently assuming soul-theory and counting souls. Buddhism = anatta / anatman.
I thought about mentioning that too, but felt no need to challenge that belief/assumption of the OP since the proposition could be demolished without doing so.

:coffee:
Kim
haha
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by haha »

Different people have different viewpoints on this matter. It is really not logical to say that one will attain a particular fruit without entering into the particular path. Nor will one be free from fetters over the course of time.

There is a text call Maha Prajnaparamita Sastras attributed to Nagarjuna (i.e. probably composed in China) addressed similar question at least in some degree.
Śāstra: Question. - It has been said by the Buddha that the universes are innumerable (apramāṇa) and infinite (ananta); how can you speak of a universe situated at the limits of the universe (sarvāvasāniko lokadhātuḥ)? To talk in this way is to fall into the [heretical theory] of a finite world (anatavān lokaḥ). If the universes were limited [in number], the total number of beings would [at length] be exhausted. Actually, each one of the innumerable Buddhas saves an immense (aprameya) and incalculable (asaṃkhyeya) number of beings and introduces them into nirvāṇa without residue (nirupadhiśeṣanirodha); if there were not always new beings, their number would finally be exhausted.

Answer. - The Buddhist sūtras do indeed say that the universes are infinite in number, but this is a statement of a practical order (upāyokti) and not a true doctrine. In the same way, although the saint (chen here translates 'tathāgata') does not exist [after death], in practice (upāyena) we say that the saint exists [after death]. All of this is in the fourteen difficult questions [on which the Buddha refused to comment]. To say that the world is finite (antavān lokaḥ) or to say that the world is infinite (anantavān lokaḥ) are both wrong views (mithyādṛṣṭi). If the universes were infinite [in number], the Buddha would not possess omniscience (sarvajñāna), for omniscience is a universal wisdom from which nothing can escape; if the universes were infinite, some things would escape him. On the other hand, if the universes were finite in number, you would run up against the difficulty you raised above [in your question]. Therefore both solutions are wrong. Why? Because by being based on the infinite, one destroys the finite. The Ratnāvatī universe is not the limit of all the universes, but the Buddha Śākyamuni abides in the extreme limit so that beings may be saved. Similarly, when one abides at the boundary of a country, one does not claim to be abiding at the boundary of Jambudvīpa. If the universes were infinite, the Buddha would not be omniscient; his wisdom being immense, he must know everything, for 'if the letter is big, the envelope also must be big.'

Chapter XV: The Arrival of the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Directions

muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by muni »

No beings, yes, but, but! There is experience of suffering. And these experiences are experienced as being real.

"Who is more shameless in this world
Than one who abandons to samsara's ocean of suffering
All the mothers who have tenderly cared for him since beginningless time,
And instead strives toward the peace of a solitary nirvana."

When we simple say they are not then we as well 'delete' methods of liberation. See all beings ( =all suffering) as more important than oneself ( =own experience/suffering) to release the habitual idea of "I" and so automatically beings. ( solidness). Or release solidifying thoughts in nature. There cannot be beings or other existences without the thought of I.

At least there should not be a risk of clinging to emptiness.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Aemilius »

haha wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:19 am Different people have different viewpoints on this matter. It is really not logical to say that one will attain a particular fruit without entering into the particular path. Nor will one be free from fetters over the course of time.

There is a text call Maha Prajnaparamita Sastras attributed to Nagarjuna (i.e. probably composed in China) addressed similar question at least in some degree.
I see nothing "chinese" in it. Why should we doubt or undermine the translation work and honesty of Kumarajiva? For example Bhikshu Dharmamitra writes:
"(Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa Upadesha)]) is an immense exegesis to the Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa Sutra in 25,000 lines. Classically, it is preserved only in a 100-fascicle Chinese edition translated from Sanskrit in 405c.e. by Kumarajiva, the brilliant and prolific translator-monk who was the premier transmitter to the Chinese of the Maadhyamika teachings of Nagarjuna. Although presented in the form of an exegesis, it is actually a compendium of Dharma jewels as interpreted by one of the most illustrious Indian masters of the Middle Way."
from http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/ ... ita_Sastra
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
haha
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by haha »

Aemilius wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:22 am
haha wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:19 am Different people have different viewpoints on this matter. It is really not logical to say that one will attain a particular fruit without entering into the particular path. Nor will one be free from fetters over the course of time.

There is a text call Maha Prajnaparamita Sastras attributed to Nagarjuna (i.e. probably composed in China) addressed similar question at least in some degree.
I see nothing "chinese" in it. Why should we doubt or undermine the translation work and honesty of Kumarajiva? For example Bhikshu Dharmamitra writes:
"(Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa Upadesha)]) is an immense exegesis to the Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa Sutra in 25,000 lines. Classically, it is preserved only in a 100-fascicle Chinese edition translated from Sanskrit in 405c.e. by Kumarajiva, the brilliant and prolific translator-monk who was the premier transmitter to the Chinese of the Maadhyamika teachings of Nagarjuna. Although presented in the form of an exegesis, it is actually a compendium of Dharma jewels as interpreted by one of the most illustrious Indian masters of the Middle Way."
from http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/ ... ita_Sastra
There is no denial of it as a prolific work; whoever composed it was well verse in sutras and arguments of that time.

There are various arguments about it. Some said that other Indian Madhyamaka followers had never mentioned or quoted it (i.e. Chandrakirti, etc.).
BillSocrate
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:20 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by BillSocrate »

DNS wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:09 am
BillSocrate wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:17 pm Let me try differently.
My interpretation of Thevara:
1. Sentinent beings are finite - you just transforming - cat to pig to human to pig so on.
See the quote from above, Theravada does not say sentient beings are finite nor infinite.
If these beings are growing then we will bust the Universe.
How do you know this? Are you an astrophysicist?

You haven't answered my chess analogy response. How are certain animals / beings on another planet going to attain enlightenment, if they don't have the cognitive level to do so? You might say the other animals get reborn as humans and then attain nirvana; but as that happens, there are still animals / other beings procreating on earth and other planets. And then you might say that the beings are finite, but that hasn't been determined, nor stated by Buddhism.
"Infinite monkey theorem" make sense. I would say, one day the monkey will beat Magnus Carlsen - due to randomness; not that monkey knows chess. There are 101 keys in the keyboard and valid chess moves at a given turn is much less than that; the theory says monkey can write Shakespears then beating Carlsen is much easier.

The "Infinite monkey theorem" also put any living being into nirvana with infinite time. How? The pig will not reach nirvana - it will have to be one of the pig's higher being life (or "experience") which has cognitive ability such as human, brama, angel life so on. How the pig gets there? One can't stay on top #1 forever and at the bottom forever either. Look at Elon Musk, he's not #1 any more. Why can't you stay at the bottom forever? Well, as one going thru hell state/life/experience, he would by chance in one of the life, he would do good like a dog helping his owner or something. He would build on that karma and eventually meet a Buddha or learn his teaching then escape.

Listening to all the Theravada stories and there wasn't a time mentioned about "beings" being created - all they mentioned was reincarnation (transforming).

Looks like after reading most of the post, the answer to the question, will the universe be empty, everyone getting into nirvana, without any beings given infinite time, that's all depend on whether beings are infinite (new beings are being created) or finite.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Kim O'Hara »

BillSocrate wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:26 am ...whether beings are infinite (new beings are being created) or finite.
Beings can be infinite even if new beings are not being created. If the universe is infinite, so are the beings in it.

If the universe is infinite...

The universe contains an inifinite number of galaxies.
Each galaxy may contain thousands or millions of stars, so the universe contains an infinite number of stars (way more than the number of galaxies, but still infinite).
Each star may be orbited by 0, 1, 2 or more planets, so the universe contains an infinite number of planets (way more than the number of stars, but still just infinite).
Each planet may be home to none, millions or billions of sentient beings, so the universe contains an infinite number of sentient beings (more than the number of planets, but still merely infinite).

And if even one of those sentient beings out of every quindecillion* is thinking about this question, an infinite number of sentient beings are thinking about this question.
Right now.
:thinking:

:coffee:
Kim

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Kai lord »

BillSocrate wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:26 am
DNS wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:09 am
BillSocrate wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:17 pm Let me try differently.
My interpretation of Thevara:
1. Sentinent beings are finite - you just transforming - cat to pig to human to pig so on.
See the quote from above, Theravada does not say sentient beings are finite nor infinite.
If these beings are growing then we will bust the Universe.
How do you know this? Are you an astrophysicist?

You haven't answered my chess analogy response. How are certain animals / beings on another planet going to attain enlightenment, if they don't have the cognitive level to do so? You might say the other animals get reborn as humans and then attain nirvana; but as that happens, there are still animals / other beings procreating on earth and other planets. And then you might say that the beings are finite, but that hasn't been determined, nor stated by Buddhism.
"Infinite monkey theorem" make sense. I would say, one day the monkey will beat Magnus Carlsen - due to randomness; not that monkey knows chess. There are 101 keys in the keyboard and valid chess moves at a given turn is much less than that; the theory says monkey can write Shakespears then beating Carlsen is much easier.

The "Infinite monkey theorem" also put any living being into nirvana with infinite time. How? The pig will not reach nirvana - it will have to be one of the pig's higher being life (or "experience") which has cognitive ability such as human, brama, angel life so on. How the pig gets there? One can't stay on top #1 forever and at the bottom forever either. Look at Elon Musk, he's not #1 any more. Why can't you stay at the bottom forever? Well, as one going thru hell state/life/experience, he would by chance in one of the life, he would do good like a dog helping his owner or something. He would build on that karma and eventually meet a Buddha or learn his teaching then escape.

Listening to all the Theravada stories and there wasn't a time mentioned about "beings" being created - all they mentioned was reincarnation (transforming).

Looks like after reading most of the post, the answer to the question, will the universe be empty, everyone getting into nirvana, without any beings given infinite time, that's all depend on whether beings are infinite (new beings are being created) or finite.
Even if they are infinite in number, Infinite minus infinite is undefined or in other words, it simply means we don't know. Infinite is not a real number, indeed its something that defies math and human logic.

Sure Infinity is endless, that does not mean it includes "all possible permutations". Just like an infinite series of even numbers does not even contain an odd number, etc. Without all right conditions in place, a sentinel being can't attain awakening even if billions of years have passed.

So there is no use spending much time speculating about it. The fact that there are sill millions of ants, etc, crawling around us is enough proof that there are still countless of sentinel beings in samsara!
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by DNS »

BillSocrate wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:26 am "Infinite monkey theorem" make sense. I would say, one day the monkey will beat Magnus Carlsen - due to randomness; not that monkey knows chess. There are 101 keys in the keyboard and valid chess moves at a given turn is much less than that; the theory says monkey can write Shakespears then beating Carlsen is much easier.
As I have already noted in my posts in this thread, that is just a random production of a game at the quality of Magnus Carlsen, not the cognitive level of a Carlsen game, so that wouldn't count at reaching that level and by analogy, enlightenment/nirvana.
Kai lord wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:26 am Even if they are infinite in number, Infinite minus infinite is undefined or in other words, it simply means we don't know. Infinite is not a real number, indeed its something that defies math and human logic.

Sure Infinity is endless, that does not mean it includes "all possible permutations". Just like an infinite series of even numbers does not even contain an odd number, etc. Without all right conditions in place, a sentinel being can't attain awakening even if billions of years have passed.

So there is no use spending much time speculating about it. The fact that there are sill millions of ants, etc, crawling around us is enough proof that there are still countless of sentinel beings in samsara!
I agree and what I was trying to convey in my chess analogy. There are millions, trillions of ants and other beings who are not cognitively ready for enlightenment/nirvana. And by the time this planet and even universe perishes, there will still be beings in samsara who are reborn in the next big-bang, universe. And this goes on for apparently an infinite or near infinite time.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: nirvana mathematically not possible

Post by Virgo »

A little b it about infinity:



Virgo
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”