Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do you see my point about it, that saying a near zilch chance is just not true?
I see your point, I just disagree.
Basically: I trust science, you don't, end of story.
Namaste
That is not true at all. Ok then please put forward in detail your 'scientific argument' to conclusively give the concept of rebirth and the concept of a constant number of sentient beings in the universe a near zero possibility. Because so far your arguments are just telling me science says your right without actually giving me a detailed description of what science backs you up. Please teach me this as I must have missed it in all the science literature I have read to date.
It’s simple probability. The population of any two life-sustaining planets are independent of each other (because they are separated by vast stretches of space). Now, take a massive amount of such populations, each constantly changing, and what are the mathematical chances that the sum of all those numbers remains constant? Next to zilch.
First of all your assuming that the population of two life sustaining planets are independent of each other. Forget science, your Buddhist teachings should inform you otherwise (nothing is independent of each other), and science tells us this, I mean a gamma-ray burst in the andromeda galaxy which is 'separated by vast stretches of space' from earth( 2.5 million light years to be more precise) could wipe out life on earth. Moreover, it is possible that life could cross the 'vast stretches of space' via asteroids/comets to give a greater than zero probability that two planets 'separated by vast stretches of space' could exchange material maybe life, so again to say that 'life sustaining planets are independent is based on flawed assumptions. As for the mathematical chances that the sum of all those numbers remain constant being zilch, as I have said, you really cannot say this and then say science backs you up, as it does not.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE ARE IN THE UNIVERSE/UNIVERSES, THEREFORE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE COULD BE THAT HARBOUR LIFE. THE UNCERTAINTY IN THESE VARIABLES AND THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DATA, SERIOUSLY INHIBITS ANY STATISTICAL MODEL TO HAVE ANY RELIABLE RESULTS.
When you said science backs you up, I was expecting a theory/group of theories backed up by experimental/observational evidence that can categorically prove or even suggest that 1: rebirth is not true, and 2: the number of sentient beings in the universe is not constant. I am still waiting for these arguments, if indeed they do exist.
I think you will find that no such evidence exists, if it does then I would be really grateful if you could direct me to it, as I would like to read how it comes to that conclusion.
I was curious as to why it is often assumed that one could only be reborn on earth. After all there are likely hundreds of millions of planets that are capable of supporting life (even if the life form in question is not immediately recognisable as such) in this galaxy alone and there are hundreds of trillions of Galaxies. Taking this into consideration, the odds of being reincarnated on earth are literally astronomical. Yet in the vast majority of cases where people claim to be able to recall past lives, it is always in the form of an earth being. Is this because as humans we are unable to comprehend any recollections of lives as beings so drastically different? As well, I am aware of the concept of other "realms" and do realize that they could be interpreted as other planetary bodies. However, people generally only seem to recall being an organism on earth, which brings up the question of whether beings are drawn to certain planets and are fated to be reincarnated there until attaining enlightenment.
So any ideas?
MOD EDIT: Moved to Advanced Ideas
Patterns from the space between, to a dark matter, gravity, the first blaze of atomic energy, the blast of stars spread asunder, the suns, moons, planets, the elements start over and transform into life, which mimics the universe, all showing the spiral dance of life, death, and rebirth. The above is but a gist of pattern that may point towards "reincarnate transformation" within each galaxy.
It is likely that our bodies would transform elsewhere because our being is omnipresent and connected to what always has been and always will be; however, it seems that to each galaxy is of its own matter and our physical bodies are comprised of this galaxy's elements. In being, it may be possible to reincarnate in other galaxies, but, we may have to at least get our current bodies there (as just an idea). Perhaps that would be a way of starting a type of palyogenesis (spelling in question) elsewhere under the elements of another galaxy.
Or maybe in being we do actually flip from one galactic existence to another, much like the energy within each atom, only until we find a compatible physical plane to fit in throughout the universe. Perhaps this is why the Buddha and other masters have taught consciousness and awareness.
Imo, It really seems possible to reincarnate in other galaxies throughout the universe. And this is within the context of being, not within the context of neither the body, the self, nor other. The endless possibilities are past what the mind will be able to attain. But, as a part of being, this feels very real for some reason that my mind is not aware of, yet.
Much gratitude, @naturofreality, thanks so much for bringing this post up. It is very interesting and brings much joy to witness on the screen of my mind.
I was curious as to why it is often assumed that one could only be reborn on earth. After all there are likely hundreds of millions of planets that are capable of supporting life (even if the life form in question is not immediately recognisable as such) in this galaxy alone and there are hundreds of trillions of Galaxies. Taking this into consideration, the odds of being reincarnated on earth are literally astronomical. Yet in the vast majority of cases where people claim to be able to recall past lives, it is always in the form of an earth being. Is this because as humans we are unable to comprehend any recollections of lives as beings so drastically different? As well, I am aware of the concept of other "realms" and do realize that they could be interpreted as other planetary bodies. However, people generally only seem to recall being an organism on earth, which brings up the question of whether beings are drawn to certain planets and are fated to be reincarnated there until attaining enlightenment.
So any ideas?
MOD EDIT: Moved to Advanced Ideas
Patterns from the space between, to a dark matter, gravity, the first blaze of atomic energy, the blast of stars spread asunder, the suns, moons, planets, the elements start over and transform into life, which mimics the universe, all showing the spiral dance of life, death, and rebirth. The above is but a gist of pattern that may point towards "reincarnate transformation" within each galaxy.
It is likely that our bodies would transform elsewhere because our being is omnipresent and connected to what always has been and always will be; however, it seems that to each galaxy is of its own matter and our physical bodies are comprised of this galaxy's elements. In being, it may be possible to reincarnate in other galaxies, but, we may have to at least get our current bodies there (as just an idea). Perhaps that would be a way of starting a type of palyogenesis (spelling in question) elsewhere under the elements of another galaxy.
Or maybe in being we do actually flip from one galactic existence to another, much like the energy within each atom, only until we find a compatible physical plane to fit in throughout the universe. Perhaps this is why the Buddha and other masters have taught consciousness and awareness.
Imo, It really seems possible to reincarnate in other galaxies throughout the universe. And this is within the context of being, not within the context of neither the body, the self, nor other. The endless possibilities are past what the mind will be able to attain. But, as a part of being, this feels very real for some reason that my mind is not aware of, yet.
Much gratitude, @natureofreality, thanks so much for bringing this post up. It is very interesting and brings much joy to witness on the screen of my mind.
First of all your assuming that the population of two life sustaining planets are independent of each other.
Yes, that is my assumption. More specifically, what I mean is that the relative changes in one planet's population does not affect another planet's population.
a gamma-ray burst in the andromeda galaxy which is 'separated by vast stretches of space' from earth( 2.5 million light years to be more precise) could wipe out life on earth.
Two planets being simultaneously affected by the same outside influence is entirely different to two planets affecting each other. Let's say a star expands, taking out two life sustaining
Moreover, it is possible that life could cross the 'vast stretches of space' via asteroids/comets to give a greater than zero probability that two planets 'separated by vast stretches of space' could exchange material maybe life, so again to say that 'life sustaining planets are independent is based on flawed assumptions.
As for the mathematical chances that the sum of all those numbers remain constant being zilch, as I have said, you really cannot say this and then say science backs you up, as it does not.
Simple maths: a multitude of planets with independently varying populations (a+b+c+d ...+x), chance of the sum of these remaining constant, next to zilch.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE ARE IN THE UNIVERSE/UNIVERSES, THEREFORE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE COULD BE THAT HARBOUR LIFE. THE UNCERTAINTY IN THESE VARIABLES AND THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DATA, SERIOUSLY INHIBITS ANY STATISTICAL MODEL TO HAVE ANY RELIABLE RESULTS.
Not at all. Firstly, we DO know there are many planets that may sustain life in our universe. And in fact, just two planets (i.e. one more in addition to Earth) with varying populations would have a very low probability of a constant total.
When you said science backs you up, I was expecting a theory/group of theories backed up by experimental/observational evidence that can categorically prove or even suggest that 1: rebirth is not true, and 2: the number of sentient beings in the universe is not constant. I am still waiting for these arguments, if indeed they do exist. I think you will find that no such evidence exists, if it does then I would be really grateful if you could direct me to it, as I would like to read how it comes to that conclusion.
I couldn't have been much clearer. The only reason for you to reject my idea is that a) you already assume rebirth is true and that therefore planet populations are connected in some spiritual, as-yet-not-understood-by-science way, or b) you don't understand the basic maths.
So your whole argument relies on the assumption that rebirth is instant and that two populations on different planets are independent of each other. The first is unproven and I do not think you can prove it, and second is only valid in this closed isolated system of two planets. However, in the universe you will find that there are more than two planets and there is no solid evidence to suggest that the universe is indeed an isolated system as again you assume it is, for example the idea of a multiverse would contradict this isolated universe view. Anyway could it be that all things in the universe are connected, with each action that occurs big or small in the universe can have an effect that has many consequences both on the macroscopic and microscopic scale both in the local vicinity of the initial action and indeed a knock on effect which affects the the whole universe in one way or another. I think so, for one the force of gravity ensures this.
Your basic maths gives basic unreliable answers without any deeper thought into if it is appropriate to actually use basic math for such a big question that you say science has the answer to.
There is also a good book I suggest you read if you have spare time, by David Bohm called 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'
Also if the big bang theory is correct, again you will see that all the universe was at one point connected. All I am saying is I still think it is connected. At least there is no conclusive evidence I have seen to suggest that it is not. You do not agree with this tough, which is fine, but still it would be nice to see the science you said that backs up your claims.
Anyway also try reading about quantum entanglement, for more information on the interconnectivity that exists in the universe.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Just feel like I want to jump into the debate between @zidangus and @Daozen.
Something like half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, not sure on the exact number, or imagine all the fish eggs, etc that fail to grow into life. In a universe with trillions and trillions of living beings it would be small potatoes for a tiny fractional increase of those fertilized eggs to implant to absorb the loss of life from one planet. Also, from my understanding of buddhist cosmology, physical form isn't the only medium for an individual to take rebirth. Maybe some of those lives could be reborn as some type of spirit. Not that I have any kind of strong belief in spirits, but its a possibility that could argue for a constant number of individuals in the universe.
At the end of the day @Daozen I hope you can see that our current scientific understanding does not rule anything in or out, with regard to the answers to the question of a constant number of sentient beings in the universe or rebirth.
@Cloud@Mountains unless @Vincenzi is reborn as a new member on the site. Just look out for threads/comments from a Nordic alien elf from the open star cluster Pleiades.
Imagine two termite nests. One is in the Australian outback, the other is in the African scrub. Now tell me, does the population of one directly, statistically, affect the population of the other? And does their combined population remain constant, no matter what external influences may affect them individually?
The answer, of course, is no. And yet, they are more connected than two planets.
And of course, if suitable causation can't be even shown for a case of two populations, it cannot possibly be shown for more. You seemed to misunderstand this in your previous posts.
Furthermore, network theory shows that a system may be connected but that doesn't mean every point directly affects any other. Eg, a connects to b and c, thus a, b and c can be said to be connected, and yet b need not affect c or vice versa.
Your attitude to science seems ambiguous at best (you say forget science, and science doesn't know, and then quote the most complex of science such as quantum theory when you think it supports your ideas: it doesn't, because biological structures and phenomenon such as fertility and birth rates cannot in any way be adequately described by subatomic physics), and ignorant at worst (you seem unable to distinguish between degrees of probability).
Anyway, after all this time it seems we are both still unable to come to much agreement, so it might be best if we leave off the discussion for now.
"Subhuti, if virtuous men and women were to grind a great trichiliocosm into minute particles, what does your mind say? This assemblage of minute particles would be many, would it not?" "Extremely many, World Honoured One. Why is this? If this assemblage of minute particles was really existent, then the Buddha would not have spoken of an assemblage of minute particles. How is this? The Buddha says an assemblage of minute particles is not an assemblage of minute particles, so it is called an assemblage of minute particles." "World Honoured One, the Tathagata has said a great trichiliocosm is not a great trichiliocosm, so it is called a great trichiliocosm. Why is this? If a great trichiliocosm was really existent, then it would be a unified entity. The Tathagata says a unified entity is not a unified entity, so it is called a unified entity." "Subhuti, a unified entity cannot be spoken of. Only ordinary peole are attached to this matter."
@Daozen, you should just admit that your views are your own beliefs and not those backed up by science as you claimed. I happily admit that my view that rebirth can occur is based on faith, my logic and a gut feeling, and has no solid scientific evidence to date (apart from circumstantial) that proves it beyond doubt. You should do the same with your views on this matter and stop trying to convince yourself that science backs you up, as it is clear it does not.
With Metta
by the way, I said show me your science that backs you up, the reason I said forget science was to show you that even Buddhas own teachings highlight the interdependencies of all things, and that nothing is truly independent, not even the population of your planets or termite mounds
Imagine two termite nests. One is in the Australian outback, the other is in the African scrub. Now tell me, does the population of one directly, statistically, affect the population of the other? And does their combined population remain constant, no matter what external influences may affect them individually?
The answer, of course, is no. And yet, they are more connected than two planets.
And of course, if suitable causation can't be even shown for a case of two populations, it cannot possibly be shown for more. You seemed to misunderstand this in your previous posts.
Final note on your last post, I think again your arguments seem to ASSUME that when a termite dies in one mound it MUST BE reborn in the other termite mound, WHY MUST IT be reborn as a termite in the other termite mound ? Why could it not be reborn as another sentient being in samsara ? (see also @persons post) I think your isolated two planet argument ASSUMES the same thing. Looking at your arguments there are just to many assumptions that are seriously flawed, it has more holes in it than a sieve. Tough I guess making all of these assumptions is the only way you could really make use of your basic math theory. Anyway again not one credible scientific argument to back up any of your claims (without using your assumptions that is).
When I don't use science to study Buddhism, I study the Buddha's teachings to better understand myself and so I can help others in the future with out obstructions to my actions, speech and thoughts.
I study science of material as a part of my civil engineer degree so I can build safe structures.
"Some indie kid got shot in the forrest by a poisoned arrow, his friend goes to help him and wants to pull the arrow out. The indie kid stops his friend and says: "Wait! Before you pull it out I want to find out who shot me first! Is the person a man, a woman, a darkie, a whitie, a fattie or a thinnie?" Before his friend can answer, the indie kid died from the poison in the arrow."
Will Quantam physics help one remove the 5 poison within your system?
Comments
Basically: I trust science, you don't, end of story.
Namaste
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE ARE IN THE UNIVERSE/UNIVERSES, THEREFORE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PLANETS THERE COULD BE THAT HARBOUR LIFE. THE UNCERTAINTY IN THESE VARIABLES AND THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DATA, SERIOUSLY INHIBITS ANY STATISTICAL MODEL TO HAVE ANY RELIABLE RESULTS.
When you said science backs you up, I was expecting a theory/group of theories backed up by experimental/observational evidence that can categorically prove or even suggest that 1: rebirth is not true, and 2: the number of sentient beings in the universe is not constant.
I am still waiting for these arguments, if indeed they do exist.
I think you will find that no such evidence exists, if it does then I would be really grateful if you could direct me to it, as I would like to read how it comes to that conclusion.
Cheers
It is likely that our bodies would transform elsewhere because our being is omnipresent and connected to what always has been and always will be; however, it seems that to each galaxy is of its own matter and our physical bodies are comprised of this galaxy's elements. In being, it may be possible to reincarnate in other galaxies, but, we may have to at least get our current bodies there (as just an idea). Perhaps that would be a way of starting a type of palyogenesis (spelling in question) elsewhere under the elements of another galaxy.
Or maybe in being we do actually flip from one galactic existence to another, much like the energy within each atom, only until we find a compatible physical plane to fit in throughout the universe.
Perhaps this is why the Buddha and other masters have taught consciousness and awareness.
Imo, It really seems possible to reincarnate in other galaxies throughout the universe. And this is within the context of being, not within the context of neither the body, the self, nor other. The endless possibilities are past what the mind will be able to attain. But, as a part of being, this feels very real for some reason that my mind is not aware of, yet.
Much gratitude, @naturofreality, thanks so much for bringing this post up. It is very interesting and brings much joy to witness on the screen of my mind.
It is likely that our bodies would transform elsewhere because our being is omnipresent and connected to what always has been and always will be; however, it seems that to each galaxy is of its own matter and our physical bodies are comprised of this galaxy's elements. In being, it may be possible to reincarnate in other galaxies, but, we may have to at least get our current bodies there (as just an idea). Perhaps that would be a way of starting a type of palyogenesis (spelling in question) elsewhere under the elements of another galaxy.
Or maybe in being we do actually flip from one galactic existence to another, much like the energy within each atom, only until we find a compatible physical plane to fit in throughout the universe.
Perhaps this is why the Buddha and other masters have taught consciousness and awareness.
Imo, It really seems possible to reincarnate in other galaxies throughout the universe. And this is within the context of being, not within the context of neither the body, the self, nor other. The endless possibilities are past what the mind will be able to attain. But, as a part of being, this feels very real for some reason that my mind is not aware of, yet.
Much gratitude, @natureofreality, thanks so much for bringing this post up. It is very interesting and brings much joy to witness on the screen of my mind.
Namaste
Your basic maths gives basic unreliable answers without any deeper thought into if it is appropriate to actually use basic math for such a big question that you say science has the answer to.
There is also a good book I suggest you read if you have spare time, by David Bohm called
'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wholeness-Implicate-Order-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415289793
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm
Its a good read
Anyway also try reading about quantum entanglement, for more information on the interconnectivity that exists in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept
Something like half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, not sure on the exact number, or imagine all the fish eggs, etc that fail to grow into life. In a universe with trillions and trillions of living beings it would be small potatoes for a tiny fractional increase of those fertilized eggs to implant to absorb the loss of life from one planet. Also, from my understanding of buddhist cosmology, physical form isn't the only medium for an individual to take rebirth. Maybe some of those lives could be reborn as some type of spirit. Not that I have any kind of strong belief in spirits, but its a possibility that could argue for a constant number of individuals in the universe.
At the end of the day @Daozen I hope you can see that our current scientific understanding does not rule anything in or out, with regard to the answers to the question of a constant number of sentient beings in the universe or rebirth.
:wow:
Imagine two termite nests. One is in the Australian outback, the other is in the African scrub. Now tell me, does the population of one directly, statistically, affect the population of the other? And does their combined population remain constant, no matter what external influences may affect them individually?
The answer, of course, is no. And yet, they are more connected than two planets.
And of course, if suitable causation can't be even shown for a case of two populations, it cannot possibly be shown for more. You seemed to misunderstand this in your previous posts.
Furthermore, network theory shows that a system may be connected but that doesn't mean every point directly affects any other. Eg, a connects to b and c, thus a, b and c can be said to be connected, and yet b need not affect c or vice versa.
Your attitude to science seems ambiguous at best (you say forget science, and science doesn't know, and then quote the most complex of science such as quantum theory when you think it supports your ideas: it doesn't, because biological structures and phenomenon such as fertility and birth rates cannot in any way be adequately described by subatomic physics), and ignorant at worst (you seem unable to distinguish between degrees of probability).
Anyway, after all this time it seems we are both still unable to come to much agreement, so it might be best if we leave off the discussion for now.
All the best with your beliefs.
- Section 30 of the "Diamond Sutra"
Reductionism is only half the picture.
With Metta
by the way, I said show me your science that backs you up, the reason I said forget science was to show you that even Buddhas own teachings highlight the interdependencies of all things, and that nothing is truly independent, not even the population of your planets or termite mounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology :scratch:
With Metta
I study science of material as a part of my civil engineer degree so I can build safe structures.
"Some indie kid got shot in the forrest by a poisoned arrow, his friend goes to help him and wants to pull the arrow out. The indie kid stops his friend and says: "Wait! Before you pull it out I want to find out who shot me first! Is the person a man, a woman, a darkie, a whitie, a fattie or a thinnie?" Before his friend can answer, the indie kid died from the poison in the arrow."
Will Quantam physics help one remove the 5 poison within your system?