My 2 cents on this discussion.
First, the argument from pathfinder:
1) Everything is based on cause and effect
2) With complete knowledge of the causes you will have complete knowledge of the effects
3) With complete knowledge of the effect, since these effects are also causes for the future effects, one can tell with striking accuracy of the state of things in the past and future infinitely, if the being is capable enough to absorb and process all the causes in the present moment.
4) With this, we can also say that what we do next is based on cause and effect, eg the being can predict what we will do next.
—-
Premise #2 is highly questionable. There is no such thing as “complete knowledge of the causes” — not even for inert matter, let alone the mind!
The thought experiment of Laplace’s Demon is also quite suspect:
“if someone (the demon) knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed…”
I am no physicist, but I learned that there is some kind of uncertainty principle which states that it is not possible to know both the location and momentum of a particle.
The notion of the possibility of deriving the past (which has no beginning), present, future of atoms, particles, or even 5 khandā or cittā — even as just as an idle intellectual pastime, and no matter how cleverly constructed — is futile. Not only that, it can be addicting, since seemingly clever arguments is often mistaken for “profundity of thought”, when it just leads to sampappalāpā, not nibbana.
Second, just a general observation based on my experience of listening to numerous “Buddhists”, including even bhikkhu teachers who consider the truth of “no-self”, i.e. there is no “doer”, the highest realization, and that seeing this means attaining arahantship (seeing the absolute truth). It leads to statement like we see above:
“And that’s why the absolute truth is that there is “no doer”, “no me”, but we have the distorted perception that there is, until we reach the Arahant stage”.
In this PD community, we have learned that anatta does NOT mean “no-self”; after learning true Dhamma, we see that “no-self” (no permament soul type entity, no “doer” behind phenomena) is embedded in the teaching, not an “ultimate truth” the realization of which brings arahanthood. Yet we still cannot resist bringing up this “no-self” business in a back-handed way via clever arguments. There is something very addicting about this notion.
My intention is by no means to offend anyone. It’s just that I have seen too often how arguments/reasoning of this type leads to endless discussion without leading in the direction of nibbana, in my opinion.
Best,
Lang
