Intoscience

Ok thanks, I guess then what I'm really asking is why the models (lets just keep it to QM & GR for arguments sake) are conflicting. In that one describes gravity as a force (particle exchange) and the other as geodesics. This then in my mind sort of emulates the wave particle duality we see with particles. Where similarly gravity can be one or the other depending on the context of the observation/experiment. Ok, I get this thanks, what I'm really asking then is, what is gravity at its most fundamental level a geodesic due to the interaction between mass and space or a force due to the interaction between 2 or more massive objects? Or neither, as these are just different models representing the same effect? Ok, maybe I'm confusing models with description. Thanks

I'm not taking it as criticism, I appreciate your offer and would be interested in gaining a better understanding. I'm sure I have many misconceptions, which is probably why I struggle to get my head around the models, their relationship and how they fit into the big picture (or small picture). Yes, and this is my question really. Can any model describe to a fundamental level which describes the underlining mechanics? I was listening to a TED talk where a scientist (can't recall the name) mentioned that some well know physicists are exploring theories that go beyond what we may currently consider as fundamental such as space & time. That such things like space & time maybe projections from a deeper more fundamental reality. Yes, I appreciate this and it maybe the case that the deeper we delve the more models arise and then fail as we go deeper still. My question is as per my reply to Bufofrog

Yes, I agree and familiar with each model. I just can't get my head around which model actually describes gravity in its "true" form. All the models make accurate predictions even, Newtonian that has been succeeded by GR still is accurate enough for most applications. But if all fail at some level then in my feeble mind all are just approximations and don't describe gravity at the most fundamental level.

To be fair "IF" god exists then I'm not sure we could assume this premise anyway. We have our experience of time, for all we know this could be all part of the model and not relevant to god.

This is something that bugs me. I can't get my head around why there should be different models. I appreciate that they may be used for different applications, much like you may use different tools in engineering to achieve the same goal. But in my mind there will be just one that is the correct one, so all the others are useful approximations.

I have similar experiences with my Bluetooth mouse. I put it down to the "Bluetooth fairy's". (sorry couldn't help myself) Sometimes I notice that it can depend on the surface I place the mouse, I guess its the optical detection sensor picking something up like dust/grains/surface blemish etc...?

I like to think of gravity in just of "interaction" terms. When a imagine the force of gravity I imagine it in the classical sense of a force and then struggle to consolidate this with the GR model of gravity.

Yes, I can understand this and agree. Really it's the only way we can form an image, and certainly one that would make any sense to us, or at least resemble something familiar to some degree.

Assuming god exists and created life, to ask why maybe a unique human inquisitive trait and may not apply to god or any other living being. What other life considers why it exists? Do we know, can we know? Humans have a desire for a sense of purpose, it's the seeking for purpose that drives us to enquire of the why's (especially when it comes to existence in general). The reality could be that things just are, with no reason or no purpose and no god.

I don't know, and maybe I will never find out during my own experience. I would hope that it doesn't play a significant role in the hiring process, mainly because I agree that the tests don't necessarily represent a person's true capability or potential. So why are they used at all? The company whose job I have applied for considers itself to be a modern, diverse and inclusive business, committed to people, the environment and sustainability. A sales pitch I know, so why are they using a personality test as part of the employment selection process? I assume that they may attribute certain personality categories to be beneficial for certain job roles. I can't fathom for what other reason they may want to do these tests other than they may also consider certain personality types to fit better with the company's ethos and culture? I also assume that they place some faith in the results of the test, else why conduct them, other than to tick boxes? By the way, I have progressed to the last stage in the interview process, which is encouraging.

I'm just saying that if I believed god was real then I couldn't imagine what god was or looked like. So yeah, to fill the gaps I may consider god as a reflection of human self image. But then I can't imagine how such a "being" could be god. In a sense its a bit like trying to imagine what was before the big bang, what is at the edge of the universe what exists beyond space & time... Asking such questions may in themselves be nonsensical but they also might be quite valid. So I imagine god to be the same - beyond our imagination but not beyond existence (in some form). If you think about such things more closely you begin to realise that even our language may lack the ability to describe these things. If so then how can one begin to for an image? Our imagination is limited really to our experiences, our sensory inputs. I image god to be outside of this.

Well yeah that's sort of the point, isn't it? (my bold) Maybe it could be interpreted this way but that was not my initial intent, no, well sort of to a degree I guess. I imagine that if I believed in god then to me god would be unimaginable in my mind. Since god in this sense is all powerful and encompassing then god sits outside (if that even means anything) all that we can ever imagine. Making it impossible to imagine god and the "realm" god resides, (again if that evens means anything). So my statement was to summarise and embrace this notion.

I try to apply logic where I can and try when possible to avoid contradictions. Though, being human, with complex emotions, ideologies and all the other distractions, I fail miserably at times.

+1 I'm getting confused on what we are trying to establish? I consider myself an atheist = I don't believe in any god/s deity, divinity... If I believed in any or even just one of the said then I would consider myself a theist, but would then go on to define what it is I believe in.

So this is the only way I can comprehend something that cannot be imagined in any physical or metaphysical sense or experience we may have or ever encounter/ed.

What do you find interesting, I'm intrigued. Is it because my statement is paradoxical?

Atheist - someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist: I'm not sure how I would interpret this, does it mean that to be an atheist you have to not believe in "any" god? Or would it be applicable to those that believe in only one god - theist to one, atheist to all others? Sorry but I'm edging towards Dis n Dat on this point.

I'm quit surprised by this. Though I can understand that if a god is presented as a person then the person imagining that god may well indeed imagine a person from their ethnicity. The classical Christian western image of god being an old man with a long white beard sitting on a large throne in heaven for example, not dissimilar to that of the Greek god Zeus. When god is described as a person, then I guess its difficult to image a metaphysical being other than that in the shape of a human being. If god is described alternatively as a force that surrounds and occupies everything then this makes it easier to discard an image of a person. Similar to George Lucas's "force" in the Starwars trilogies. In my mind "if" I believed in god then I would imagine something that cannot be imagined at all.

Yes, so maybe (objectively speaking) the tests do exactly what they are designed to do - categorise people by personality? This was my point, I expected the ambiguity to yield differing results, turns out all the results were the same. In my feeble mind is this then not objective enough? Would a person asking the same questions not form an opinion based on their own emotional bias, be that intentional or non intentional? They are surely bound to use themselves as comparison to make a judgement. A test doesn't care, it's just a computer program that uses a set of universal algorithms to yield a non emotionally biased result.

The OP is not likely to reply based on posting history - 4 new topics all on the same day, no response to any as yet. So while we are waiting maybe you would like to give us your thoughts on the subject?

No doubt that we all share traits that fit into each category. As i said before there is bound to be overlap and likely that each of us would qualify as more than one type certainly as we progress through life and our attitudes and experiences change. My point was that, I took the test/s with little to no knowledge of them, no experience and definitely no other agenda but to "tick boxes". What surprised me was that over a selection of independent tests (I repeat myself once again) I received the same result. I would have expected (suspected) that since the tests are rather ambiguous then the tests would yield differing results, placing me in similar but different categories. this was not the case in my own experience. Maybe being an ant has its advantages, aliens... well we may see one day.

I'm in a fortunate position and count myself very lucky that the job role is a promotion. If I don't get the position no harm no foul I will remain doing the role I am currently. If i do then it is the last step in furthering my career (I guess). It is definitely you, in what way whatso ever is it religious, sounds religious, derides religion...? I was being honest, should I lie? Yes, I am human, or at least I believe I am, you never know (I have often being accused of being an alien).

I often find myself watching clips of people doing some amazing feats, the diversity of talent and skill is astounding! From drawing/painting images, making music, to death defying stunts... humans are so talented. This then got me wondering about life in general, especially animated life and how special it really is. That a bunch of basic atoms arranged in certain ways, can form massively complex mechanisms that can perform such a diverse and unimaginable number of feats is quite remarkable. I was watching a young lady perform on a violin on the streets just the other day, she was no older than 13 and produced a sound from the instrument that just activated every sensory nerve in my body. She is extremely talented and a joy to listen to. There are so many people out there that can do so many amazing things, the universe should be proud of its achievements!

Yeah, I can see how one might want to influence a test in order to gain what they may perceive as an advantage. Honestly, it never crossed my mind during my test. My mind set being that if I remain honest and end up successful in getting the job then I can be confident that I can just be my true self during my employment. This in my mind takes some of the stress out of the job role. The job I've applied for is quite a challenging role and ultimately responsible for nearly 500 staff, so the last thing I want is to try and be someone I'm not. I think most employers (I've been one myself in the past) just want people who are productive and not disruptive. Basically people who are easy to manage, don't complain much and just get on with their task at hand. Not all people function well as a team, but they can still add value to a system independently. My personality is such that though I'm ok with social environments, and can work as part of a team, I generally prefer my own space to work on problems independently.

No, not at all. (my bold) i did learn something about myself which is why I found it interesting. So in this respect, the experience was useful. +1 for the post by the way Not sure, INFJ's are said to be unsure how people perceive them so I guess so. I wouldn't know how to. I answered with honesty and sincerity to the best of my knowledge, as I mentioned some of the questions left me wondering "well it depends" which I then proceeded to tick either a neutral or very slight lean towards. I don't know how the tests results are formulated and what type a test may produce. I might be able to have a good go and guess which obviously would change the result. But whether the result would be of benefit for employment, I'm not sure what type they are looking for, if any in particular. We are all aware that the tests are ambiguous and open to interpretation. What did surprise me during my own experience, and what raised my interest, was the fact that such ambiguous tests resulted in the same outcome on 4 independent occasions. My point being from the start that, what I thought was a total waste of time turned out to be an interesting and thought provoking experience, which I thought I share on here. Some people are engaging in the discussion on the subject, others seem to be playing games. For what ever reason I'm not sure about other than either ridicule or some other agenda I can't ascertain. If I was posting here advocating or promoting these tests then I'd get it, I'm just sharing my own experience... gees guys. I guess if I was to use these tests to ascertain a person's likely personality and how this would fit into the system I intend to engage in with them, then all I could do is to assume the very basics traits to see if there was any in particular that I thought would be of benefit or not. But in reality a person should be given a chance to prove their worth and not necessarily limited to what the test results indicate. What will be interesting is to see if, whether I get the job or not, the personality test played any key part in the decision making. Maybe this is a form of discrimination? positive or negative.