Yes, the path from the person to the (true)self, put simply. I could elaborate, but it might not get us any further than that.

There is the issue of what the true self, or the Divine is and there is the issue of how the person gets there, if at all.

Many a slip betwixt cup and lip. Reminds me the JWST; as Wayfarer replied to a question of mine (vide infra)

Will things go awfully wrong for the JWST or will it go as planned?
— Agent Smith

JWST got through all 344 single-point failures - things that, if they had gone wrong, would have doomed the mission. So - so far it is going exactly as planned, astonishingly well, in fact. — Wayfarer

Infinite monkey theorem: There are so many attempting to hit the bullseye of mysticism, that one or two most definitely will, even if no skills but only luck is involved. Serendipity, how spectacular you are! Very few could put up a fight against the barbarian hordes: sheer numbers guaranteed victory/defeat depending on which side of the battle you were on.

Infinite monkey theorem: — Agent Smith

You know the infinite monkey theorem is a feature of an infinite amount of time.

You know the infinite monkey theorem is a feature of an infinite amount of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

:ok: No, I wasn't aware of such a connection.

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type a single complete work, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero). The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening, at least as long as it has not occurred, will almost certainly eventually occur. — Wikipedia

:ok:

I was under the impression that it's kinda like a lottery. If the right number of people play, one is sure to win (doesn't take an infinite amount of time to actualize an event with a probability near-zero but not zero).

So, if we have an infinity of monkeys, one of 'em should produce the entire works of Shakespeare, in fact everything that was written, is being written, and will be written in a finite amount of time determined by typing speed and the size of all written/spoken text.

Imagine if this were doable. We could find out what Socrates said to his wife Xanthippe (for gossip-mongers), what orders were issued, verbatim, by Napoleon to his general in secret, and so much more.

:heart:

Any task requires time. Even with an infinite number of monkeys it is not guaranteed that one of them would type any particular thing at first try. This is because many of them would type the very same thing. in the first few moments. So time is the essential feature. We might even consider that one monkey would type all of Shakespeare in an infinite amount of time.

But still we'd have to consider what constitutes all of Shakespeare. Would typing one text at one time, then another text at a much later time qualify? If so, then would typing the first letter at one time, then the second letter at another time, and the third letter at a later time, etc., qualify? What happens with all the intervening letters?

The infinite monkey theorem, as a rendition of the principle of plenitude, is really a demonstration that the idea of infinite time is ridiculous.

I don’t know what JWST stands for?

I agree with Metaphysician Undercover here. Infinite time is a peculiarity of philosophy, along with the infinite monkey theorem.

Also I disagree with your point about random mystics achieving the goal eventually. As I see it and as it is taught in mystical traditions there is a path, or lifestyle. So if one puts one foot in front of the other on that path, one has achieved one’s goal. Or another way of viewing this is how an acorn becomes a mature tree. It is achieved one growth ring at a time, not all of a sudden by happenstance.

Perhaps by goal you are thinking about the realisation of nirvana. If such a state does indeed exist, then eventually every being would get there in varying ways.

The infinite monkey theorem, as a rendition of the principle of plenitude, is really a demonstration that the idea of infinite time is ridiculous — Metaphysician Undercover

I still feel, time isn't really a factor in re the infinite monkey theorem. Why, as you yourself so graciously pointed out only one monkey would be needed for this rather boring task, it has all of eternity to try out all character combinations.

Say you roll 2 die, the odds of you rolling a 3 on either of them is twice the odds with just one die. Extrapolate that and with $\infty$ macaques, one will get it right immediately. What say you?

Also I disagree with your point about random mystics achieving the goal eventually. — Punshhh

I guess you feel merit plays a role in all this. One must be pure of heart or a diamond in the rough (Aladdin, Disney), oui? Bad karma, it's said, can cloud your judgment, you wouldn't see God even if He appeared in person in front of you.

With bad karma,

1. You won't know what nirvana is.

2. Even if you know what nirvana is, you won't be able to attain it.

3. Even if you attain nirvana, you won't know you attained it.

4. Even if you know you attained nirvana, you won't reap its benefits.

5. Even if you reap its benefits,...ad nauseam (you'll never be 100%)

According to Tibetan Buddhism, everyone is a buddha. It's just that their bad karma stops them from realizing their own buddhahood (buddha nature). Introvertive mysticism; turn on your little gods (minds, re Leibniz).

Not merit, but growth.

Deleted

I still feel, time isn't really a factor in re the infinite monkey theorem. Why, as you yourself so graciously pointed out only one monkey would be needed for this rather boring task, it has all of eternity to try out all character combinations. — Agent Smith

The point being that the monkey needs all of eternity (infinite time). Assign any particular amount of time to the monkey and it is highly probable that it would not complete the task in that time. Give the monkey infinite time, and it is impossible that it will not complete the task. As I said above, this just shows how ridiculous the concept of infinite time is.

Not merit, but growth. — Punshhh

:ok:

The point being that the monkey needs all of eternity (infinite time). Assign any particular amount of time to the monkey and it is highly probable that it would not complete the task in that time. Give the monkey infinite time, and it is impossible that it will not complete the task. As I said above, this just shows how ridiculous the concept of infinite time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see your point, only vaguely though.

Or maybe they became more firm in the truth.

What truth are you referring to?

(I note no one else picked up this hot potato. Maybe it’s a good way into a discussion of mysticism)

I see your point, only vaguely though. — Agent Smith

What does it mean to see a point "vaguely"? Does this mean that the point only has a vague existence, or does it mean that your mind only has a vague grasp of it? Or both, or neither? If the point itself is in your mind, then I would conclude both.

What does it mean to see a point "vaguely"? Does this mean that the point only has a vague existence, or does it mean that your mind only has a vague grasp of it? Or both, or neither? If the point itself is in your mind, then I would conclude both. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it's not at all clear that for the infinite monkey theorem to work infinite time is necessary. Imagine if I have an infinity of googol-sided (10¹⁰⁰) dice. Getting a googol on one roll of one such die is vanishingly small, unlikely. However, if I roll all of them (infinite googol-sided dice) at once (think multiverse), at least one of the outcomes will be a googol; the time required is finite - the average amount of time a die will take stop rolling - and not infinite.

Not merit, but growth — Punshhh

Like malignant tumor? :fear:

So you're saying that if there is an infinite number of monkeys typing, it's very likely that one might sit down and type some Shakespeare right off the bat. Well, I see the point but I don't buy it. I guess the example not only shows how ridiculous infinite time is, it shows how ridiculous an infinity of anything is.
What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular?

What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular? — Metaphysician Undercover

Good question but doesn't affect my argument. Spheres do come to rest, oui?

I don't buy it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why? Do the math. Lemme show you:

Assume that 5 represents all written/spoken words. and P(x) is the probability of getting x on roll of a die.

1. One die.
P(5)₁ = $\frac{1}{6}$

2. Two dice.
P(5)₂ = $\frac{11}{36}$

3. Three die
P(5)₃= $\frac{91}{216}$

P(5)₃ > P(5)₂ > P(5)₁

As the number of dice approaches $\infty$, P(5) approaches 100% (certainty).

Give the monkey infinite time, and it is impossible that it will not complete the task — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think there is a justified reason to think this.

Well this infinite monkey analogy seems to have a malignancy about it.

But joking aside, what I was saying is that a being achieving a mystical goal, or enlightenment or whatever. Is as a result of the stage of growth they are at as a being*. So for example a mystic, or aspirant might practice really hard in a certain way and achieve enlightenment. But that that achievement was going to happen anyway, irrespective of the course of action of the mystic. That that course of action might be one of a set of behaviours exhibited by a being going through such an inevitable development in the growth of their being.

*I am working from the assumption that a being is in essence transcendent of the world, or some kind of immortal soul.

Indeed, sometimes one's choices don't matter to what happens eventually. On occasion the path forks and one's in a dilemma which one to take, one then does, after pondering deeply upon the options, only to find out later that both paths reunite farther down. Such things do happen. Makes me wonder if free will means anything at all!

Why? Do the math. Lemme show you: — Agent Smith

I do not accept any mathematics which employs infinity. Infinity is not applicable to real world situations Such mathematics may be very useful in many situations, but the infinity monkey example demonstrates how adhering to principles which are not actually applicable to real world situations, will eventually give us absurd conclusions.

I don't think there is a justified reason to think this. — Yohan

That's what I've been saying, the conclusion is based in faulty mathematics which employs infinity as a number.

What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly what it means, it's basic calculus.

I do not accept any mathematics which employs infinity. Infinity is not applicable to real world situations Such mathematics may be very useful in many situations, but the infinity monkey example demonstrates how adhering to principles which are not actually applicable to real world situations, will eventually give us absurd conclusions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I won't say you're wrong. There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. Even Archimedes & Eudoxus, two people who were among the first to employ the method of exhaustion simply stopped/limited their calculations at/to an arbitrarily large but finite number (Archimedes used, if memory serves, a 96-sided polygon to approximate a circle when calculating $\pi$).

In addition, there's also the small matter of one's sanity. Georg Cantor, to whom we owe our current understanding of $\infty$, eventually went bonkers, lost his, once formidable, mind.

What, may I ask, are the specific issues you have with $\infty$? Is it the paradoxes (Cantor's mind probably couldn't parse them and ergo, his brain crashed) or something else?

:up:

There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. — Agent Smith

It is because, for the Greeks, a number is a count (arithmos). It tells us how many of whatever thing you are counting. There can be no counting without a unit of the count, some one thing that is counted, apples, oranges, or fruit. An infinite or unlimited amount is not a number, it does not tell us how many.

That's what I've been saying, the conclusion is based in faulty mathematics which employs infinity as a number. — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe infinity leads to absurdity