Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Mike Smirnoff, modified 12 Days ago.

Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
For those who have a logical/mathematical side to them: 

In what follows, when I say rebirth, I mean, beings doing the rounds of birth and death, for example, as in the Majjhima Nikaya. I don't mean any ultimate realities/causality of Abhidhamma.


Let X1, X2, ..., Xn be beings doing the rounds of rebirth in the loka (universe). n can change. In Lemmas 1, 2, 3 below, it is assumed that the law of kamma and rebirth hold.

Lemma 1: n can only fall, not rise

Proof: If n rose, then a new being was created at a finite time. Thus, suffering for a new being arose out of nothing. This would contradict the law of kamma. n can fall because maybe a being attained Nibbana and then is no longer present.

Lemma 2: Each Xi got created at time -infinity (thus, not at a finite time in the past)

Proof: This is hidden in the previous proof. If an Xi got created at a finite time, suffering started for Xi out of nothing, thus, the law of kamma is violated.

Lemma 3: If big bang at a finite time in the past can be thought of as a starting point of time in the sense that whatever happened before it can be ignored, the law of kamma fails.

Proof: Follows from Lemma 2. If big bang can be thought of as a starting point in time , beings get created after the big bang, thus, at a finite time, and by Lemma 2, this violates the law of kamma.


Discussion 1: By Lemma 2, each Xi got created at time -infinity. This is why, the Buddha, if he is preaching kamma and rebirth, had to say that beings are doing their rounds from a "beginningless" time. If he said a finite time, he would have been contradicting himself. This is also why the Vedanta says, that each being has existed since time eternal.

[Edit: The Pali suttas use the phrase "without discoverable beginning,'' which means a first occasion cannot be discerned. It is ``without discoverable beginning'' that I call beginningless above.]

Discussion 2: The Vedanta distinguishes between the exoteric and esoteric doctrine. It says that the Exoteric view (let's say, worldly view) is that beings are undergoing rounds of rebirth since all time. In the esoteric view, there is no rebirth. A similar thing happens in Buddhism, in words of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, we hold on to the view that there is rebirth, but in the end, we have to let go of all views.



Discussion 3: Personally speaking, I have no reason to think of the big-bang as a point in time such that whatever happened before it does not matter. This is because, my mind poses the question: Where did that initial blob out of which the big-bang happened, come from? This also raises the question: What is time? Is it a creation of the mind? Or does it have independent existence outside our faculties?
George S, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Mike Smirnoff
This also raises the question: What is time? Is it a creation of the mind? Or does it have independent existence outside our faculties?

​​​​​​​It could be both! Time could be an external physical reality, which our brain also models to create a subjective experience of time. And even the physical and subjective aspects of time have multiple facets. On the physical side, time is a measure of irreversible thermodynamic change (increasing entropy) as well as a "static" coordinate in a relativistic 4d manifold (spacetime), to name just two facets. On the subjective side, the experience of time is very different in thinking about human history, vs our own lifetime, vs waiting for a bus, vs worrying about the future, vs sitting in a jhana. The personal sense of time passing is the most interesting from a meditative perspective IMO because - whatever physical reality is doing (even if it exists) - it is still a fabrication, created by laying down and reprocessing memories as well as thinking about the future, all in the present moment. Truly accepting our inability to escape from the present moment, even when we are remembering or planning, is significant and takes time (!) to integrate.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
George, yes it can be both But what's the evidence that it is an external physical reality? I don't see how we can ever be sure. All conclusions we come to is by the use of our faculties. I think, at best we can say, we don't know the ultimate nature of reality.
George S, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Mike Smirnoff
George, yes it can be both But what's the evidence that it is an external physical reality? I don't see how we can ever be sure. All conclusions we come to is by the use of our faculties. I think, at best we can say, we don't know the ultimate nature of reality.

Agreed, but if our experience is not causally related to an external physical reality then what's the alternative explanation? A finely synchronized series of hallucinations?!
Mike Smirnoff, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
The explanation might be that the fact that we ask for an explanation, that is, cause and effect (causality), might itself be just a construct/faculty of the mind.

Again, Deussen, Elements of Metaphysics argues this. I am much more convinced of his arguments regarding time being a construct of the mind than causality being a construct of the mind. But I'm still reasonably convinced.
How do you have lemmas and proofs without specifying the axioms they were built on emoticon.
Is n a natural number, is it countably infinite, is it real, is it complex, what about purely imaginary beings?
Is time a real number, e.g. given special relativity it's not clear that everyone
is on the same scalar time axis, you'd need a 4 vector at least.
​​​​​​​How do you even prove the law of kamma, you'd have to assume
and specify it as an axiom in your system.
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 3770 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Personally, I think it's all imaginary  emoticon
Mike Smirnoff, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Chris, my conclusion is the same -- that our minds create time starting at eternity in the past and eternity in the future.

PS: For those who might have not read an earlier post of mine, arguments for why time is a creation of the mind, which, to me, seem correct, can be found in  "Elements of Metaphysics" by Paul Deussen.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hector --
I've already said in the post:
Before Lemmas 1,2,3, I've said, we assume that the law of kamma and rebirth are true.
I've also said, rebirth in the sense of beings coming in and passing away as in the Majjhima Nikaya, thus, n is a natural number.


Mike Smirnoff
Hector --
I've already said in the post:
Before Lemmas 1,2,3, I've said, we assume that the law of kamma and rebirth are true.
I've also said, rebirth in the sense of beings coming in and passing away as in the Majjhima Nikaya, thus, n is a natural number.
Huh I was thinking n is probably not a natural number. How would we figure out what happens when saimese twins get separated, or when someone ends and their gut bacteria begins. Or when they donate blood and their blood cells become separate entities.  It is not even clear you can add two beings, say a person donates an organ upon death does n go down by 1 or a fraction.  When dolly the sheep got cloned did n go up by 1 or 0? Seems like there seems a conflict too to assume integer n and then have all this parallel thought about no self and dependent co-arising but I am not too familiar with these concepts coming from more secular mindfulness stuff so  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mike Smirnoff, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hector -

Your earlier issue was that I've not stated my assumptions. I hope that is clarified now. If not, and if you're interested, you can read the Majjhima Nikaya to see their model of birth, death, and rebirth.

Your current issue is that my assumptions on which I base the Lemmas are wrong. I've nothing to say about that. All I'm saying is the assumptions that  I'm starting with and the consequences of it.

Mike.
George S, modified 19 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Something about this thread reminds me of the story about the night before Kurt Godel's US citizenship test. Supposedly he stayed up all night because he thought he had discovered a loophole in the constitution whereby the US could become a dictatorship. He was convinced he couldn't go through with it and Einstein had to come and talk him off the ledge.

(In a little known addendum, not only did Trump have a copy of Mein Kampf besides his bed but also Godel's collected works. Or maybe that was on Melania's side, I forget the details.)
Mike Smirnoff, modified 14 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Haha, I'm a fan of Godel. Maybe tell me why this thread reminds you of Kurt Godel.

Let me make a guess, though I might be wrong about it: 

I'm trying to take the Buddhist law of kamma and rebirth theory to its logical end and in the end, I'm pretty much coming to the conclusion that it does not make logical sense. However, the purpose of this is not to find any loophole in the theory. The purpose of my doing it is to get to the truth of what the Buddha was trying to say. I'm a fan of the Buddha.  Now question arises, what is the purpose of carrying out such a seemingly intellectual exercise like I have carried out in the first post in this thread -- and especially this needs explaining on a forum which prides itself on pragmatic dharma. The reason is that intellect can be used in constructive ways and if one really cares about the truth, whatever the intellect sees can eventually seep right into the depths of the heart. Maybe this is the path of knowledge that the Vedantins talk about (as opposed to the path of experience that some Buddhists talk about), I don't know.

Maybe let me explain a view of history that I have. The Vedic time seers were trying to get to the truth, and they came up with the law of karma and rebirth etc. One culmination of the thought oth the Vedic seers was the Upanishads. Another is the Buddha -- and one of the things he did was to give a through discussion of the law of rebirth at an empirical level. And then he talked about Nibbana which lives outside space-time, and is beyond empirical reality. The same was done by The Vedanta which talked about exoteric doctrine where there is the law of kamma and rebirth, and the esoteric doctrine which is beyond empirical reality -- much of this was worked out by Sankara.

Western Enlightenment thinkers, in particular, Kant, came similar conclusions, that empirical reality is a construct of the human brain -- caught up in its faculties of time, space, and causality. He also provided some arguments that should be acceptable to the modern science community. Much of this is ignored, though, by modern empirical scientists, be it physicists or biologists. For them, space and time exist as independent realities outside our faculties. They have no evidence for this. Mostly, they are unconscious of their belief. They believe that human cognitive faculties and reason can explain the universe, but there is no reason to believe that reason can explain the universe. Thus, their faith is reason but they are not even aware of their faith. Along with that, mostly, these modern empirical scientists (physicists, biologists) are quick to dismiss those who believe in God, while they themselves have their belief system (that is, as I said above, that time, space exist as independent physical realities and that, intellect and thinking in terms of cause and effect can explain the universe).

I'm a fan of Godel because he proved that even in a seemingly logical system like mathematics, there are statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. Thus, he brought mathematics to its knees. Mathematics can't solve its own problems, however, many physicists still like to believe that mathematics can explain the universe. That is their faith.

I should add here, there is nothing wrong with what physicists and biologists do -- I think it is OK to stretch the limits of empirical knowledge. However, mostly, they are unconscious of the assumptions (stated previously) they are working under.
Thanks, will check it out. I've seen the Middle length discourses cited a few times in MCTB 2.0. How do you experience it before
reading it though? I tend to like experiencing something for myself rather than reading it first. Do you just enter jhana and then
resolve to see a past life?
Mike Smirnoff, modified 18 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hi Hector,

I've never had an experience of re-birth.  Maybe look at the discussions following the lemmas. I have thought many times that maybe this or that is what I was in my past life, especially when meditating, but that does not mean it was my real past life. I don't carry much of a belief in re-birth. In fact, I don't carry much of a belief in time being real beyond a construct of our faculties.  That said, there are many people who talk about past life experiences, even on this website. You can ask them if you're interested.

Some people ask me, what is the reason for carrying out this kind of an intellectual exercise. The reason is that it helps me get closer to the truth. The truth that intellect sees eventually can seep into the heart if one is open to it is my belief.

Mike.
genaro, modified 18 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 40 Join Date: 11/23/19 Recent Posts
Mike:  does this affect your 'proof'?

let's assume that 'beings in the cycle of rebirth' have existed for an 'infinite' time, back until the big bang (and possibly beyond!)  and can only decrease in number as each one is liberated (i think that's what you said).

let's also assume that to be reborn they each need to find a 'vehicle' to be born into and that vehicle has to be a metazoan animal with a nervous system (keeping the parameters fairly loose, but it makes no difference if we restrict it to mammals for example).

this implies that until life evolved that far all those beings were stuck in a very long bardo.  and unless there is a practically infinite supply of them, as the world's (universe's) population of 'vehicles' increases we  get to be surrounded by a lot of zombies.

kind of makes life tedious for bhoddisattvas, as not only do they have to liberate the entire population of the world, they have to do it more than once to get through the backlog, and yes towards the end it's ZOMBIE APOLCALYPSE, or there's an ultimate mass extincion event.

footnote:
FWIW there's a theory that time gets squashed as you approach the big bang, so it's inifinte, there's no other side of that event.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 18 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hi Genero,

Thanks for writing. I'm sort of saying what you say I think I say but let me add a clarification. I'm saying that if the law of kamma and rebirth and described in Majjhima Nikaya is taken as an axiom, then a consequence of that is that big bang cannot be a starting point of causality. In fact, no finite time can be a starting point of causality and that, beings must exist starting what mathematicians would call time -infinity. As a consequence of kamma and rebirth in the Majjhima Nikaya, I argue that number of beings can only decrease (or stay constant).

I don't quite understand your model. Maybe you can explain a little more precisely, that will help me understand better, in which case, I'd be able to answer if it affects the proof or not. Are you stating a different model or are you suggesting that there is a flaw in the proof that I have written? If you're suggesting that there is a flaw, it'd be helpful to know what you see as the flaw. I don't see one -- the arguments are quite straightforward and 1-2 lines each.

Regarding the theory that you point out (big bang with time stretching), it does not affect my proofs. My proofs are based on the model of the Majjhima Nikaya -- where there is no stretching of time (OK, the Buddha has not explicitly stated that there is no time stretching, but the way he is talking about beings being born and dead and reborn is just as normal, so no weird stuff going on).

Regarding the theory you point out, I will ask the same question that has come up in the posts following the first one in this thread: What is the evidence that time exists as a reality beyond our faculties, that is, has an independent physical existence?
genaro, modified 17 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 40 Join Date: 11/23/19 Recent Posts
Mike, I think we're getting confused by words. I was just playing with some consequences of your maths.

(Apologies for the too many words)

(In answer to your last two para's:

Time's not really relevant to what i was saying, you just mentioned 'before the big bang' and I was pointing out that it's possible to have infinite time and still have a beginning, kind of like applying zeno's paradox to peering back into galactic history:  you keep getting closer to the beginning but can never reach it, so there's no need to consider what happened before the big bang because there was no before.  It was an aside remark and of no great releveance, and the theory comes from Steven Hawking.    

FWIW  re evidence for time: general relativity requires time to be a 4th spatial dimension and it's a theory that has been tested way beyond what was known at the time for example light bending due to gravity and gravitational waves; it's not ever failed an experimental test. You can't put time in a wheelbarrow, but the sums involved (in GR), plus experimental evidence,  give the statistical chance of the theory being correct or not and the chance of not is exceedingly low.  Likewise, space does not exist outside our imagination: up/down left/right/ fwds backwards are not things you can put in a wheelbarrow, or build from Lego (ie they don't exist physically), but we would find life very difficult without them, and they depend very much on which way we are facing. Space-time is a framework we use to understand what's around us, that's all.)


Regarding your 'proof': 

I was suggesting that unless the finite number of beings on the cycle of rebirth you mention is guaranteed to be strictly no less than the number of 'sentient beings' alive at any one moment in the history of the universe for ever and ever then either some of reborn/ living beings are zombies or new 'beings in the cycle of rebirth' must appear somehow. (Given that we believe the universe to be infinite in size it's probable (no, certain) that there is an infinite number of sentient beings right now and therefore the number of beings in the cycle of rebirth must be infinite, or that some 'sentient beings' are zombies.)

So your argument logically implies that if the laws of karma and rebirth as stated by you is correct then there must be zombies. 

By implication I'm suggesting that the idea of a finite number of beings that have always existed back into an infinite past looks unlikely (I don't beleive in zombies). 

So, applying logic to the laws of karma and rebirth as stated you get contradiction and absurdity, which imples that there's something wrong with your assumptions or your or my logic.

You said to Hector:
Your current issue is that my assumptions on which I base the Lemmas are wrong. I've nothing to say about that. All I'm saying is the assumptions that  I'm starting with and the consequences of it.
All i'm saying is that the consequences show the assumptions to be wrong.


You ask what my model is: it's meta (that's meta not Metta) to this.   The texts you refer to were written hundreds of years after they were first stated and relate to some description of reality as understood at the time. They are not that reality in themselves.   I don't beleive we can describe reality by treating words as that underlying reality.  If someone 2500 years ago said 'infinite' then I don't believe they used that exact word, more likely something like 'a thousand' (as in 'a thousand petalled lotus'), thousand just means 'lots of them'.  We know a lot about infinities now, 2500 years ago I'm not so sure; we only got the idea of zero from the arabs significantly more recently than that.   Reputedly the many discourses of the Buddha were given to a wide range of audiences and i'm prepared to take as a working hypothesis that he made certain statements for the desired effect on his audience rather than for a mathematical description of the universe.  From my no doubt false POV, more likely than not, if/when he said 'beginningless time' he was just saying 'don't get too hung up on this and pay attention to my main point'.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 17 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hi Genero,
Thanks for explaining.
I agree, the conclusions are problematic. I also said on an earlier post in this thread "I'm trying to take the Buddhist law of kamma and rebirth theory to its logical end and in the end, I'm pretty much coming to the conclusion that it does not make logical sense."
​​​​​​​Mike.
Edit: Maybe it helps to add:
1. Look at discussions 1,2,3 following lemmas 1,2,3.
2. To add to the discussions 1,2,3, I'm not suggesting that the Majjhima Nikaya model of kamma and rebirth model is wrong from the point of view of empirical reality in the sense that that's how we think, in terms of past and future, and thus past lives and future lives, and many times, in terms of morality, and thus, it is a correct model from that view-point. I find it the correct model, in my view, much better than any Abhidhamma model of "ultimate" realities/causality. However, as I say in one of the discussions, Buddha starts with views in order to go beyond views, which I think means go beyond empirical reality.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 11 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hi Genero,

Regarding your comment regarding relativity, a few points need to be made:

1. Many years ago, people thought Newtonian physics was correct. Now they think it's wrong. There's no reason to believe Relativity will ultimately not be proven wrong.
2. There's no accepted theory unifying Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
3. In Biology, there's no provable theory of how conscious life "evolved" out of atoms and molecules. Sure, one can put out a lot of theories, but I have not seen anything beyond conjectures.
4. Further, points 1., 2. , 3. are actually besides the point. Even if they were correct theories, all they would explain is the nature of reality as we humans experience it (through the lens of space, time, and causality -- actually it does not even matter what these human faculties are). That does not mean that it explains how things really are, in and of themselves. 
5. Even at the level of human experience, I see no reason to believe that human language can explain human experience (just like there are problems in Mathematics which are not solvable by Mathematics, there may be problems in human experience which are not solvable by human languages). Sure it's worth a try to touch the limits  -- and this is what empirical sciences try to do. Finally I should add, this is what empirical science try to do this, but it is unclear that even if we are only trying to explain human experience and even if a language existed that could explain human experience, it is unclear to me if empirical sciences would be able to capture it.

Most scientists that I know have it as dogmatic beliefs that space, time and causality exist independent of human faculties.

Physicists, for example, believe that Mathematics will explain the physical Universe, not just in terms of how we experience it, but it's real nature (meaning, what it is, in and of itself). There are two beliefs here: a) That Mathematics will explain the Universe, and b) That the explanations got explain the real nature of the Universe as it is, and not just how humans experience it -- and this belief that the explanation is of the real nature of the universe is the belief that space, time and causality exist independently of human faculties. Question them about it, and they get irritated or have no answers. These points a) and b) constitute their faith. Most that I know are ignorant that this is their faith. Thus, in one sense, they are worse than those who have faith in God -- those who keep faith in God are at least willing to accept that it's faith. Most scientists I know are unconscious of their faith, and when pointed out, unwilling to accept that it's faith that they are keeping.  

Edit: A comment regarding relativity. Relativity assumes that time and space exists independently outside human faculties even though time can stretch and space can curve. What I am saying is that there's no evidence that time and space (and causality) exist independently as physical realities outside of our faculties.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 13 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Hi Genero,

Regarding this text of yours:

"You ask what my model is: it's meta (that's meta not Metta) to this.   The texts you refer to were written hundreds of years after they were first stated and relate to some description of reality as understood at the time. They are not that reality in themselves.   I don't beleive we can describe reality by treating words as that underlying reality.  If someone 2500 years ago said 'infinite' then I don't believe they used that exact word, more likely something like 'a thousand' (as in 'a thousand petalled lotus'), thousand just means 'lots of them'.  We know a lot about infinities now, 2500 years ago I'm not so sure; we only got the idea of zero from the arabs significantly more recently than that.   Reputedly the many discourses of the Buddha were given to a wide range of audiences and i'm prepared to take as a working hypothesis that he made certain statements for the desired effect on his audience rather than for a mathematical description of the universe.  From my no doubt false POV, more likely than not, if/when he said 'beginningless time' he was just saying 'don't get too hung up on this and pay attention to my main point'."

Belief in re-birth has come up in various ages, even for Greeks. That humans think about past and the future, and thus, what were they before they were born and what will happen after they die, is what we do because time is a faculty of ours. If one thinks of past before we were born, and we think of future after we are born, and we think that it depends on morality (that good actions lead to good results and bad actions lead to bad results), then, the model of re-birth is quite a logical one and the correct one. This  is the reason  that re-birth has come up in various civilizations though it's in India that it has been taken to it's end -- one of the people who did this was the Buddha. How we think and how we extrapolate time is part of empirical reality (I think you are thinking of empirical reality only in terms of physical reality). And then, what people think and feel, they take it as real (just as they take the physical reality in time and space to be real), and thus, re-birth comes to be thought of as being real beyond just a reality of the heart but something that actually happens in space and time (just as physicists think of empirical reality of physics as having existance in space-time beyond the human faculties) .  In summary, the  empirical reality of re-birth is as real as the empirical reality of physics. The only difference is that the empirical reality is a heart/brain matter which gets extrapolated in space-time, and the reality of physics is an eye/brain matter which gets extrapolated into space-time. Maybe another difference is that in the modern science world that we live in now, more people would agree to the reality of physics than the reality of rebirth.

Also, sure, in other civilizations, rebirth has not come up, and there are other models (like the Christian model) -- but the belief in re-birth has much more to do with just that it was a part of India at that time.

I will pose the same question to you that I posed in an earlier thread: What is the evidence that if I see a tree, say 15 feet away, that the tree actually exists as a physical reality beyond our faculties? 

Regarding infinity, sure, people were not aware of that word, but everyone, be it then or now can think of a time before any time. If they think an aeon ago, then they could think two aeons ago, three aeons ago, etc., and thus, they could think in terms of eternal time even though they might not use that word. This is one of the points which suggests that time is a faculty of the brain -- in summary -- people could think as far back into the past as possible and can think as far into the future as possible then, even if they may not use the word minus infinity and plus infinity. Thus, when Buddha said beginningless, he literally meant what mathematicians would call open interval -infinity, that is, (-infinity, . For people of that age, as it is true for people of this age, time range for the faculty of the brain is (-infinity, +infinity) -- where it is open interval, not closed interval on both sides, in the language of Mathematics -- the only difference is that he did not have the word infinity.

You also said in that post "The consequences show that the assumptions are wrong." 

To this, I answer, no, the consequences do not  show that the assumptions are wrong. They just show that the assumptions describe empirical reality (reality of the heart/brain extrapolated into space-time -- that is, the heart/brain think in terms of before birth, after death, and morality) -- the empirical reality for a certain group of people. And Buddha starts with empirical reality to go beyond empirical reality.

Mike.

PS. Thanks for the discussion. Seems like our view-points are very different. I'll give it a rest here. In case you're interested in understanding my view-point, I suggest that you read Part 1 of the book "Elements of Metaphysics" (System of Physics and System of metaphysics, the first 70 pages of the book)  by Paul Deussen, and then we can talk further if you'd like; otherwise, we will just run around in circles.
Mike Smirnoff, modified 13 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 181 Join Date: 2/6/20 Recent Posts
Thanks, everyone, for engaging on this thread.

Some will probably understand what I'm saying, others won't . I'll add, for those who don't, and if you want to understand what I'm saying, read the Majjhima Nikaya and the first 70 pages of Elements of Metaphysics by Paul Deussen. 

My last words on this thread. Thanks all again for engaging!
Jake Frankfurt Middenhall, modified 12 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 78 Join Date: 9/12/18 Recent Posts
The Buddha never said that Samsara is "Beginningless". What it actually happenned, is that the Buddha looked countless of eons in the past and he didn´t found a beginning, so, my hypothesis is that he understood this shit is too fucking old, so there is no point on trying to speculate about it, because NOBODY has the capabilities to know when it all started, and so he proceeded to declare Samsasa´s origins as one of the four imponderables. Meaning "Incomprehensible". I don´t recall the Buddha saying "no Beginning", more like "Not evident".
thumbnail
Milo, modified 12 Days ago.

RE: Logical/mathematical consequences of the law of kamma and re-birth

Posts: 365 Join Date: 11/13/18 Recent Posts
Well, we can't let this get out : )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBxUNaQI1I

Breadcrumb