Ashamed To Be Sikh

[Caspian]

Dear Caspian Ji

You said: the car is red and not red is not possible if invoking logic

Well, under Quantum Physics, in so far as the car exists the car is both red and not red

But someone as well read in Science as you would appreciate that anyway????

Yes i am familliar with that, i think your alluding to schrodingers cat (the thought experiment in which the cat is both dead and alive). Keep in mind that originally, that thought experiment was used to highlight the absurdity of quantum mechanics and not in any way to promote it. Schrodinger wanted to show why quantum mechanics cant exist—because it violated some natural laws of logic at the time.

Having said that, in the forthcoming time since then. Quantum mechanics has changed to better fit those laws of logic (and physics). Quantum mechanics is essentially meaninless on its own—you have to succumb to a "interpretation" of quantum mechanics and view it throught that interpretation. One of which is known as "many-worlds hypothesis" which posits thats at the moment of any 50/50 chance, the universe splits into two, one in which the cat is dead and the other in which the cat is alive. Therefore reconciling quantum mechanics with the laws of logic and physics.

Indeed, these days, the schrodinger cat experiment is used to gauge the effects of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. The more popular ideas tend to deal with the cat experiment in neater ways without breaking the laws of logic.

So in the case of the car, it still stands that the car cannot be red and be red at the same time within the same world.

 

[Seeker9]

Yes i am familliar with that, i think your alluding to schrodingers cat (the thought experiment in which the cat is both dead and alive). Keep in mind that originally, that thought experiment was used to highlight the absurdity of quantum mechanics and not in any way to promote it. Schrodinger wanted to show why quantum mechanics cant exist—because it violated some natural laws of logic at the time.

Having said that, in the forthcoming time since then. Quantum mechanics has changed to better fit those laws of logic (and physics). Quantum mechanics is essentially meaninless on its own—you have to succumb to a "interpretation" of quantum mechanics and view it throught that interpretation. One of which is known as "many-worlds hypothesis" which posits thats at the moment of any 50/50 chance, the universe splits into two, one in which the cat is dead and the other in which the cat is alive. Therefore reconciling quantum mechanics with the laws of logic and physics.

Indeed, these days, the schrodinger cat experiment is used to gauge the effects of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. The more popular ideas tend to deal with the cat experiment in neater ways without breaking the laws of logic.

So in the case of the car, it still stands that the car cannot be red and be red at the same time within the same world.

Yes that is a more accurate statement. It is both until observed and then it becomes one or the other. You can dismiss QP if you like but it is at the cutting edge of current theoretical physics......you may not like it because it isn't as firm and resolute as your own preferred beliefs

 

[Caspian]

Yes that is a more accurate statement. It is both until observed and then it becomes one or the other. You can dismiss QP if you like but it is at the cutting edge of current theoretical physics......you may not like it because it isn't as firm and resolute as your own preferred beliefs

It is only "both" probabilistically. It is not actualllly both. From the point of view of the cat inside the box, it is not both dead and alive. It is either dead or alive. From outside the box, we cant say wether it is dead or alive so for us it is more accurate to say it is both dead and alive. I have to make that distinction lol because the cat is an observer in his own right.

On the contrary, I do like quantum physics . But your going to have to explain how it adds support for a religious or spiritual point of view. Because it doesn't. I find that religious people tend to use qunatum mechanics to justify their beliefs because they feel as if quantum mechanics makes "anything" possible. Its not a magic elixir though, qunatum mechanics has to obey by the laws of physics/ logic and math as well. Although were only figuring it out now, in some time, QM will become a resolute theory. Even then, it does not provide evidence for a god.

BTW i responded to alot of what u had to say in a prior post on the bottom of page 6 incase you missed it good discussion so far tho

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

Seeker 9 ji is absolutely correct. I think I can make it even easier to understand.

Some years ago, I read a very interesting book that challenged much of our Western (Aristotelian) logic system, especially the mutually exclusive part (A thing is either A or ~A (A or not A). Apologies to Ayn Rand, sometimes it applies and sometimes not.

Take, for example a car that has purple doors and the rest of it is red (OK, it's ugly, but I'm making a point here, bear with me.)

Is the car red? Well, yes and no. Grey areas do exist in real life. And it's not even necessary to invoke the rather difficult, esoteric field of quantum physics

BTW, the book is called Fuzzy Math.

 

[wftw]

WoW! I did not expect this many posts regarding this topic. I am been rather busy with my school work, so had not had the chance to look at this.

I will read all the posts and respond to all the inquiries, just give me some time.

 

[Caspian]

No, thats an example of "the car is red." Inorder to be "the car is not red" there must be no read what so ever on the car. Not even one speck of red. You can also say that car is pink and be right. You can say that car is pink and red. But you cannot say that car is red and not red.

You can come up with many examples of cars that are part red. But even then, the "part red" cars fail to satisfy the claim "the car is not red" while be able to satisfy the claim "the car is red" so if you were to say "the car is red and not read" it would still be false.

 

[Caspian]

Lol, you can direct more of your questions to wftw now i would suggest asking him if hes a secret muslim first. It seems like that idea has gained traction

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the non-response response.

Let's try to decipher what you are trying to say with your study of the religions.

Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god. He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from other religions.

Give me one reason through your studies of religions why you claim Ik Ong kaar to be an entity? As you are into logic, you must be able to do that. Praying in Sikhi is not to any entity or to any deity but it is more like thinking aloud, talking to oneself in the mirror, the way of introspection. Nothing more.

Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1 god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram, ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats just my 2 cents.

So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong"
Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing."

I have no idea where you got the above from in my post. I never mentioned anything like that.

Sikhi is not an ism. I thought you knew that. If Sikhi is an ism then so is Atheism.

Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity as other religions have the ones you are bundling Sikhi with for the reasons only known to you.

And FYI, Ik Ong Kaar means ONE SOURCE OF ALL there is. So what do you understand by that? Please express yourself with your logic and reasoning that you are so proud of and try to distinguish between religions rather than bundling them together because you FEEL it is the right thing to do.

There is one more thread about Atheism (about 12 pages) in this forum that you should go through where I had the interaction with another atheist and explained him what Sikhi is all about. Unfortunately you have missed the point and fail to understand what Sikhi is all about. If I were you I would study a bit more about it and ask questions when in doubt rather than jumping to conclusions. That would be unreasonable according to any person who uses logic and reasoning.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Chaan Pardesi]

Dear Administrators..Gurfateh,

A simple request, I have no hope of hearing from the originator upon the subject .Even if he responds now, it is not at all possible to answer my questions and challenges put to him , let alone others and those who have expressed emotionally as well.

I suggest the title "ashamed to be Sikh" portays negativity about Sikhism, therefore should be changed to "Proud to be Sikhs", and allow the thread to run its natural course.[or Ashamed to be NOT a Sikh]

I am not happy with such heading [ashamed to be Sikh] as I believe it can still have some unwarranted effect upon people glancing through the net.

Allow us to turn this into the pillar and strength of the Sikh religion.This should be a lesson to others, that Sikhs will not stay silent, when sad individuals with agenda try it on.

gurfateh

 

[Caspian]

Tejwant, in the beginning I have said

"either there is no god, or if there is a god—then he is pointless"

It very well may be the case that the sikh god does exist. But he is essentially pointless then. Without being able to violate any rules of logic, math or physics—the sikh god just happens to be those laws of logic, math and physics. Hes just a middle man in that sense.

But instead of saying my concept of god is wrong and not the sikh one. Explain to me what the sikh concept of god is and i'll explain to you how its no different. Because i still stand by my statement and you havent shown me to be rong, uve just maintained that i am rong. show me.

Basically put, from my point of view. If you god is capable of any quality like "creating" "knowing" etc. He is an entity.

 

[wftw]

I just skimmed through the posts and noticed a couple of things.

1. Everyone thinks I am of some other faith? ***? To challenge ones faith makes you of another faith?

I certainly did not come here with an agenda to convert anyone to another religion, you can see this by the examples that I give because they do not favor one religion over another.

If this is how you really feel, then there is no hope in me even going on because what ever I say will be viewed with a closed minded.

2. If you can not attack my arguments, you are attacking me. This is really closed minded. Something Sikhs are taught not to do.

3. A lot of people have seemed to taken part every single sentence I have made. My intend was not to discuss this like some childish argument but rather the broader sense in a historical, factual, and proable sense.

I will look at these posts but I can already tell that most people here have already made up their mind about the arguments I want to advance and the way I am doing it. If anyone would like, I am happy to meet them in person and discuss this in the Houston area and you can see for your self that I am not a Muslim, Jew, or whatever pretending to be a Sikh.

 

[spnadmin]

Folks we are way off topic at this point. Digressions at one point were valuable to clarify points individuals needed to make. Now digressions are leagues away from the central theme. So you may be wondering what am I going to do about it? Probably split the thread. The original theme is about feeling shame about being a Sikh and the reasons, contradictions, about that.


wftw, I will give you some more time to gather together your responses, and post them so we can return to the center. If not sooner, then later I will be splitting least one other conversation from this.

 

[Caspian]

Dear Administrators..Gurfateh,

A simple request, I have no hope of hearing from the originator upon the subject .Even if he responds now, it is not at all possible to answer my questions and challenges put to him , let alone others and those who have expressed emotionally as well.

I suggest the title "ashamed to be Sikh" portays negativity about Sikhism, therefore should be changed to "Proud to be Sikhs", and allow the thread to run its natural course.[or Ashamed to be NOT a Sikh]
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33014

I am not happy with such heading [ashamed to be Sikh] as I believe it can still have some unwarranted effect upon people glancing through the net.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33014

Allow us to turn this into the pillar and strength of the Sikh religion.This should be a lesson to others, that Sikhs will not stay silent, when sad individuals with agenda try it on.

gurfateh

Lol, is there no freedom of speech on this site? The title should remain. Atleast let the originator explain why he chose the title. And if your going to change the title, why change it to something as off-topic as "proud to be sikh." As for the "negative" effects. Are you promoting a facade on this site? Are sikhs only allowed to be proud? Is there no way a sikh can be ashamed? And if one was to come to u wanting your opinions your going to censor him and re-lable him as "proud"?

Im hopinh some sikhs would atleast agree with me against the name change of the title. Or atleast, if your going to change the title, change it to something neutral instead of replacing what you deem as propaganda with your own blatanly propagandish title of "proud to be sikh"

 

[spnadmin]

I just skimmed through the posts and noticed a couple of things.

1. Everyone thinks I am of some other faith? ***? To challenge ones faith makes you of another faith?

I certainly did not come here with an agenda to convert anyone to another religion, you can see this by the examples that I give because they do not favor one religion over another.

If this is how you really feel, then there is no hope in me even going on because what ever I say will be viewed with a closed minded.

2. If you can not attack my arguments, you are attacking me. This is really closed minded. Something Sikhs are taught not to do.

3. A lot of people have seemed to taken part every single sentence I have made. My intend was not to discuss this like some childish argument but rather the broader sense in a historical, factual, and proable sense.

I will look at these posts but I can already tell that most people here have already made up their mind about the arguments I want to advance and the way I am doing it. If anyone would like, I am happy to meet them in person and discuss this in the Houston area and you can see for your self that I am not a Muslim, Jew, or whatever pretending to be a Sikh.

It seems that you posted as I was posting at the same time.

Now I am giong to say that we need a better answer than this.

 

[Caspian]

It seems that you posted as I was posting at the same time.

Now I am giong to say that we need a better answer than this.

Ill agree to shut up for the time being if people want to quiet their critiques about my points of view as well for the time being.

so that we can focus on wftw's subsequents posts?

eitherwhich way, im shutting up for the time being to let him speak I think that should suffice?

I have removed moderation fonts from the above statement to avoid confusion. spnadmin

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant, in the beginning I have said

"either there is no god, or if there is a god—then he is pointless"

It very well may be the case that the sikh god does exist. But he is essentially pointless then. Without being able to violate any rules of logic, math or physics—the sikh god just happens to be those laws of logic, math and physics. Hes just a middle man in that sense.

But instead of saying my concept of god is wrong and not the sikh one. Explain to me what the sikh concept of god is and i'll explain to you how its no different. Because i still stand by my statement and you havent shown me to be rong, uve just maintained that i am rong. show me.

Basically put, from my point of view. If you god is capable of any quality like "creating" "knowing" etc. He is an entity.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is sad to notice that you have got it all wrong once again. If I am not mistaken, your emotions are playing part in this rather than your logic and reasoning. Once again, Sikhi has NO GOD. Hence Sikhi has no middle man as you falsely claim.

I think you failed to read my post. Ik Ong Kaar means ONE SOURCE FOR ALL there is and I posed you a question what you understood by that which you failed to respond.

You keep on repeating that you stand by what you said but you fail to give any reasons behind your claim which seems quite illogical. Please take sometime to read my posts and then do not be afraid to ask questions.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Lol, is there no freedom of speech on this site? The title should remain. Atleast let the originator explain why he chose the title. And if your going to change the title, why change it to something as off-topic as "proud to be sikh." As for the "negative" effects. Are you promoting a facade on this site? Are sikhs only allowed to be proud? Is there no way a sikh can be ashamed? And if one was to come to u wanting your opinions your going to censor him and re-lable him as "proud"?

Im hopinh some sikhs would atleast agree with me against the name change of the title. Or atleast, if your going to change the title, change it to something neutral instead of replacing what you deem as propaganda with your own blatanly propagandish title of "proud to be sikh"

I have no intention of changing the title. So keep your powder dry veer ji. Again, without knowing to whom you are addressing your comments, I am forced to re-read a lot of material. Please do not hold your breath. The next irrelevant comment that is made will be deleted without warning.

 

[spnadmin]

I will be re-opening this thread in a few minutes. This is truly, yes, Caspian ji and wftw jij, exactly what troubles so many these days. An unmistakable and clear demonstration of authority.

Now - I want to make something clear without any over-posting of my comments.

1. Caspianji - You are suffering from a syndrome called "ideas of reference" insofar as you could not figure out that my comments were not directed to you. They were as clearly indicated in the quoted section directed to wftw.

2. Caspian ji - If you believe they were directed at you, then are you saying that you and wftw are the same person? I hope that is not the correct answer.

3. For this thread to make sense it would be a good idea for all members to refrain from trying shape or govern in any way the decisions of leaders or admin through the use of derisive comments.

4. That only compounds the irrelevance of some of the comments I have been reading. Also do not try to second guess me in particular.

5. wftw Please answer the questions that have been asked of you. Of course people have been taking your statements apart, analyzing and questioning each aspect. What did you expect? The kid gloves treatment.? When you start a thread with such a title then to borrow from the English of East London, "people will give as good as they get."


That wraps it up. Next round will tell what the outcome is going to be. Some who are participating here for the love of Sikhi and the love of debate will be disappointed if the thread stays closed. But of course you can see my point of view.

 

[spnadmin]

Thread re-opened.

 

[Seeker9]

It is only "both" probabilistically. It is not actualllly both. From the point of view of the cat inside the box, it is not both dead and alive. It is either dead or alive. From outside the box, we cant say wether it is dead or alive so for us it is more accurate to say it is both dead and alive. I have to make that distinction lol because the cat is an observer in his own right.

On the contrary, I do like quantum physics . But your going to have to explain how it adds support for a religious or spiritual point of view. Because it doesn't. I find that religious people tend to use qunatum mechanics to justify their beliefs because they feel as if quantum mechanics makes "anything" possible. Its not a magic elixir though, qunatum mechanics has to obey by the laws of physics/ logic and math as well. Although were only figuring it out now, in some time, QM will become a resolute theory. Even then, it does not provide evidence for a god.

BTW i responded to alot of what u had to say in a prior post on the bottom of page 6 incase you missed it good discussion so far tho

No it is both you still haven't quite grasped it. Suggest you read John Gribben who wrote a book called Schrodinger's Cat. The Quantum state is not the same as what you are describing.

you can slso google the expt where physicists proved the simulateneous existence of a particle in 2 places at once

Hope this reads ok as it is from my phone