A mathematical proof of Karma being an unfalsifiable claim

I remember growing up to countless stories lamenting the idea of good karma — do good, find good. Of course, it never made sense to me. Millions have been suffering across the world — what sin would a child have committed to be born to underprivileged parents, living in the streets, eating from the trashcan, growing up to be a filthier version of his parents? Past life, they say, yet another unfalsifiable claim.

Today I’ll try to prove the same using some mathematics I learnt during my post graduation. It’s indeed a fascinating fusion of philosophy and logic! (Someone show this to my maths professor, LOL)

Karma Concept:
In Eastern philosophies, Karma posits that an individual’s actions (intentional or not) influence their future experiences, leading to consequences (good or bad) in this life or the next.

Unfalsifiable Claim:
A claim is unfalsifiable if it cannot be proven or disproven through empirical evidence or logical reasoning.

Predicate Calculus:
A branch of mathematical logic, predicate calculus uses symbols and formal rules to represent and analyze logical statements.

Formalizing Karma with Predicate Calculus:

Let's define predicates:

K(x, y): x performs action y
G(x, y): x experiences consequence y
C(x, y): x's action y causes consequence y

Karma Axiom:
∀x ∀y ∀z (K(x, y) → C(x, y) ∧ G(x, z))

Translation: "For all individuals x, actions y, and consequences z, if x performs y, then y causes z, and x experiences z."

Unfalsifiability:

1. *Lack of empirical evidence:* Karma's consequences may manifest in future lives or realms, making empirical verification impossible.
2. *Causal ambiguity:* The relationship between actions and consequences (C(x, y)) is unclear, preventing precise predictions.
3. *Infinite regress:* Every consequence could be attributed to prior actions, ad infinitum, obscuring causal chains.

*Predicate Calculus Proof:*

Assume ∃x ∃y ∃z (K(x, y) ∧ ¬C(x, y) ∧ ¬G(x, z)) (i.e., Karma is false)

Then, ∀x ∀y ∀z ¬(K(x, y) → C(x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) (by negating the Karma axiom)

However, this leads to:

∀x ∀y ∀z (K(x, y) ∧ ¬C(x, y) ∧ ¬G(x, z)) → ⊥ (logical contradiction)

Thus, our assumption (∃x ∃y ∃z ...) must be false, and the Karma axiom remains unfalsified.

*Conclusion:*
Using predicate calculus, we've demonstrated that the concept of Karma is unfalsifiable due to:

1. Lack of empirical evidence
2. Causal ambiguity
3. Infinite regress

This formalization highlights the challenges in testing or disproving Karma's claims.