The Mathematics of Mercy: Grace as a Poisson Process

If we accept that grace operates as a Poisson process, we are making several radical claims about the nature of divinity and liberation:

The Constant Hazard Rate (Radical Equality): The core of the process is a constant rate parameter (λ). This implies that at any given moment, the probability of receiving grace and getting liberated is exactly the same for every single being. The “sinner” steeped in vice and the “saint” perfected in virtue face the exact same infinitesimal probability of liberation in the next instant. This is a terrifying equality for the ego that relies on its accumulated merit, and a boundless hope for the one who feels lost.
Memorylessness (Radical Forgiveness): This is the most crucial aspect. The process has no memory. The slate is wiped clean at every moment. A lifetime of sin does not decrease your chances; a lifetime of piety does not increase them. God, in this model, does not consult a karmic ledger before bestowing the ultimate gift. Grace is not a wage to be earned, but a sovereign event, independent of the past.
The Exponential Waiting Time (Radical Uncertainty): A direct consequence of the Poisson process is that the waiting time for the next event is Exponentially distributed. This means that having waited for a long time does not make grace more likely to arrive in the next moment. The person who has been a devotee for fifty years has the exact same probability distribution for their future “wait” as the person who just turned to God a second ago. This captures the profound mystery and unpredictability of grace. It could happen now, or it could happen in a thousand lifetimes.

Reconciling Grace and Karma: The Algorithm and the Abyss

This model seems to fly in the face of Karma, the law of cause and effect. How can both be true? Your own writings provide the answer through the concept of Shesha—that which remains.

Karma as the Algorithm: We can view the law of Karma as the predictable, causal, and algorithmic framework of existence. It governs the relative world of consequences, ensuring that actions have reactions and that systems tend toward equilibrium. It is the world of “sense”.
Grace as Shesha: Grace, modeled as a Poisson process, is the intervention of the un-modelable, the unpredictable, the abyss of pure potential that cannot be captured by the algorithm. It is Shesha, the non-ergodic force that can, at any random moment, completely override the causal chain of Karma and pull a soul out of the system entirely.

They are not mutually exclusive. Karma is the law of the land; Grace is the sovereign pardon. One governs the prison; the other can tear down its walls at any instant, for anyone, without reason.

The Human Response: Cultivating Receptivity

If grace is a random event, what is the point of spiritual practice? This is where the model reveals its genius. We cannot cause the Poisson event of grace to occur. But we can change our own state to be ableto receive it when it does.

Imagine grace as cosmic radio waves, broadcast equally and randomly across all of space and time.

The “Sinner”: May be living in a lead-lined bunker of their own making—their senses turned outward, their mind full of noise. The radio waves of grace are present, but they cannot penetrate the bunker.
The “Saint” (The Devotee): Through practices like surrender (Śaraṇāgati), meditation, and devotion, is not creating the radio waves. They are building a receiver. They are quieting their mind, turning the antenna of their awareness inward, and tuning it to the frequency of the divine.

The practice doesn’t change God’s memoryless nature; it changes our own state of receptivity. The broadcast is random, but the reception is not.

Here in Pune, on this late Thursday evening, the monsoon rain that might fall later tonight will not check the moral character of the ground below. It will fall on the fertile field and the paved street alike. Perhaps Divine Grace operates in the same way—an unpredictable, life-giving downpour from a sky that does not consult the ledgers of our lives, waiting only for a patch of open, thirsty earth on which to fall.

—————————————–

From Individual Memory to Aggregate Memorylessness

The principle at play is a fundamental concept in statistics and physics, closely related to the Law of Large Numbers.

The Individual Surfer (Has Memory): A single user’s journey is decidedly non-Markovian. You might use the “back” button (a direct use of memory), have a specific research goal, or avoid sites you remember disliking. Your path is not random.
The Aggregate Flow (Appears Memoryless): Now, imagine millions of users Browse simultaneously.
- One person is methodically researching a topic.
- Another is aimlessly clicking through social media links.
- A third is following a long chain of “related articles.”
- A fourth just opened a browser and typed in a random URL.

When you aggregate the chaotic, memory-driven, and goal-oriented paths of millions of people, the individual memories and intentions tend to cancel each other out. The resulting macro-behavior—the overall flow of traffic around the web—begins to look like a massive, probabilistic, and effectively memoryless system. The complexity of individual consciousness gets “washed out” at the aggregate level, leaving behind a process that can be beautifully modeled as a random walk.

It’s like the molecules in a river. The path of any single H₂O molecule is impossibly complex and chaotic. But the flow of the river itself is a predictable, aggregate phenomenon. PageRank is modeling the river, not the molecule.

The Unmappable Journey: Why Our Models Must Fail

Our exploration began with a simple, elegant model. Drawing from the mathematics of PageRank, we imagined a person’s belief system as a “page” on the web. Exploring a new idea was like clicking a hyperlink. If the new page proved unconvincing, the explorer would simply return to their original page and try another link. This process felt clean, logical, and powerfully Markovian—a memoryless journey where the next step depends only on the present moment.

But this elegant model, like all simple models of consciousness, contained the seeds of its own beautiful destruction. A single, nagging question began to unravel the entire fabric: What about memory?

The Combinatorial Ghost in the Machine

We first realized that a person who explores and rejects a new belief doesn’t return to their original state with a blank slate. They return with a memory. The memory of “I’ve been there, and it’s not for me” fundamentally changes the probability of clicking that same link again. Because this history influences the next choice, the process is not strictly Markovian; it is path-dependent.

The immediate solution was to simply include memory in the state itself. A person’s state is not just their Current Belief, but the pair: (Current Belief, Set of All Visited Beliefs). But this solution, as you astutely pointed out, does not simplify the problem. It unleashes a demon.

This is where the model confronts a combinatorial explosion. For even a small number of beliefs (N), the number of possible memory states grows exponentially (N * 2^(N-1)), creating a transition matrix so vast it is utterly unmanageable. This isn’t a technical inconvenience; it’s a profound revelation. The unmanageable matrix is the mathematical signature of Computational Irreducibility. It proves that the journey of belief has no shortcuts. It cannot be compressed into a simple, predictive model. It must be lived.

The Tyranny of the Discrete

The problem then deepened. We had been assuming that beliefs were like discrete, separate webpages. But you correctly identified this as a fiction. The belief space is not a set of islands; it is a continuous, fluid landscape. Our models, our very language, force us to quantize this reality, to chop it up into manageable labels like “atheist,” “theist,” “Advaitin”.

This act of quantization, while practically necessary for thought and communication, is an act of violence against reality. It imposes a “two-way loss”: we lose the infinite nuance between our defined points, and we assign incorrect weights to the experiences we force into these conceptual boxes. With this insight, our unmanageable matrix becomes something more terrifying and more beautiful: an infinite-dimensional object.

The Individual Path vs. The Aggregate Flow

This brings us to a critical question and the insight you raised: If the individual journey is so irreducibly complex and fundamentally un-modelable, why do systems like Google’s PageRank—which make a simplifying Markovian assumption—work at all?

The answer lies in the profound difference between an individual and the aggregate.

The Individual (Non-Ergodic): Your personal journey through the web or through the space of belief is non-ergodic. Your history, habits, and goals create a unique, path-dependent trajectory. Observing you for ten years will never yield the same statistical average as observing the entire population for a month, because you are a “locked-in” system.
The Aggregate (Effectively Markovian): PageRank, however, is not modeling you. It is modeling the collective flow of millions of people. In this massive aggregate, the individual memories, goals, and non-ergodic paths tend to cancel each other out. The physicist’s focus on arxiv.org is balanced by the gamer’s focus on twitch.tv. The chaos of individual, memory-driven choices gets “washed out,” and what remains is a system whose macro-behavior can be effectively modeled as a memoryless, random process.

The Markovian assumption is a powerful and pragmatic simplification that works because it ignores the irreducible complexity of the individual path and instead models the stable, statistical center of gravity of the entire system. It models the river, not the water molecule.

The Beautiful Failure

So we arrive at a stunning conclusion. Our attempt to build a simple, Markovian model for an individual’s belief evolution has failed completely. Yet, its failure is its greatest success.

The model failed because it could not contain the reality of a single, conscious human journey. In its spectacular collapse, it revealed the truth of our inner lives: they are path-dependent, haunted by the ghost of memory. They are computationally irreducible, a unique story with no shortcuts. They exist on a continuous landscape, which our discrete concepts can only crudely approximate.

While we can create useful models for the aggregate, the authentic, non-ergodic path of the individual soul remains beyond their reach. The model’s inability to capture this reality isn’t a bug; it’s a feature that proves the sacred, un-mappable freedom of the human spirit.