Intrigued

Planetary migration is, by now, pretty well established. This applies, as you suggest, to the movement of the gas/ice giants in our system. (IIRC one giant was likely expelled from the early system.) I have several papers on the subject and will look for the most recent/relevant and post links, likely tomorrow.

Yes. I was agreeing with you and giving you a compliment.

Of course not, but you are thinking logically. Evidence and observation suggest you are, in the population at large, in a minority.

It occurs to me that the explanation is as follows: An almost universal tendency of humans is to lie. Lying tends to increase in proportion to the severity of the consequences of not lying. Lying is related to concealing information. These tests, necessarily, conceal information. Therefore the scenario is one in which there is concealed information and a perceived incentive to conceal findings possibly prejudicial to the individual in the test. Therefore, "Somethings going on here and I don't like it". Your error Strange is that you are expecting people to act logically, when most will simply adopt the faux logic outlined above.

Yourself.

We are not using it to explain how molecules form, we are using it as a word to that avoids us having to use several words. It's how language works. It's a classifier. Saying that an elephant is an animal, tells us nothing if we choose to ignore (as you are doing for emergence) to that this places elephants in a specific group. Emergent properties are a specific group of properties. That's all there is to it. It's a convenient way of facilitating discussion, however it only works if the all the participants understand the language. You've decided that calling something an animal tells us nothing.

A typical fifth columnist position desgined to lull us into a false sense of security until the invasion fleet arrives!

In the absence of emergence there would be no meaningful structures or entities in the universe, just scattered clumps of hydrogen and helium gas. Emergence is thus evolution in the broad sense, though it incorporates aspects of biological evolution. Emergence is another way of saying "Here's something new!". I suggest novelty and evolution are important and meaningful.

I suppose I should thank you for adding to my vocabulary, but then I would have to condemn you in equal measure for using such an ugly word, when "informative" would have served as well and been more readily recognised.

I agree. I was not arguing for his proposal, but seeking to ensure we addressed his proposal and not a strawman version arising from his (accidental) misuse of terms.

But I also mentioned patents. It is - pun intended - patently clear to me that whether through translation error or misunderstanding of terminology Saa is using the term copyright, as Sensei suggests, to cover intellectual property. Strange and you appear determined to be critical of a strawman rather than help Saa clarify the idea he was actually trying to present. Full marks to Saa for persisting.

First, as Phi noted earlier, there could be translation issues in Saa's post. Second, Saa has agreed with my interpretation of his concepts.

As I pointed out on in my earlier post, Saa is not talking about authors, sensuo stricto, as the writers of books, but authors as the producers of ideas, inventions and discoveries.

It is still difficult to confidently understand what you have written. Does the following come close to your idea? Scientists and engineers do not invent things, or "create" discoveries, they reveal what was already inherently present. Consequently their work is a revelation to which they are not entitled reap all the benefits. Thus all authors are entitled to only a proportion of patents and copyrights. The benefits should be spread between a "support" of nature and the protection of this new system and a portion to the "author".

The ability to experience fear, worry and anxiety is a vital survival trait. Worry alerts us to potential problems; anxiety is a message from our subconscious that the problem is almost certainly real; fear is confirmation and the preparation of the body to deal with the problem, by fight or flight. Alcohol allows a temporary change of perspective on reality, in the same way a ten mile run, a walk through the Louvre, or the contemplation of mitochondrial biochemistry does. Temproary changes of perspective enhance, rather than cloud reality. Faith, in contrast, is the ultimate means of hiding from reality. Faith is the most effective way of rejecting evidence. Faith allows one, like Carrol's queen, to " believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast" yet to do so without his charm. Faith allows one walk off a cliff, confident one will be unharmed. Faith allows one to immolate oneself and forty innocent fellow humans, confident one will awake in Paradise with a harem of virgins.

I can generate this "profound sense of peace" with three double Drambuie on ice. Does that mean I should worship whiskey distillers and hope to go to the Isle of Skye when I die?

Certainly. Much better than the alternative of dying in large groups!

And how do you know that?

Doing both would demonstrate a sincere commitment to succeed and a willingness to put in the necessary effort. (I speak with no direct knowledge of your target field, but from a general, personal observation of management thinking in a variety of companies.)

No! They were an attempt to define, through example, my understanding of the meaning of "hope" and, by contrast, "faith". Please re-read it with that in mind and respond accordingly. I am sincerely trying to understand your definition of faith. Despite your best efforts, thus far, I have been unsuccessful. The above quote has done nothing to help. I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to offer me your definition directly. Here is my definition: faith is a confident belief in the claims of an individual, organisation, or philosophy, independent of any substantial objective evidence for that confidence. Since we have also been contrasting hope with faith, here is my definition of hope: a wish that there will be a particular outcome to an event, such a wish being based more on desire than objective probability.

As I understand it, the idea of the Homework Help section of the forum is to assist you in completing your homework, not to do it for you. How far have you got with the problem so far?

Hi Eddie, you have clearly devoted a lot of time to this. I appreciate the caution you have exercised in presenting the idea. Kudos for that. I'm puzzled by the two sentence quote above. You state that you have not achieved any result "greater than chance would allow." That means that your five years of testing have demonstrated that there is no statisitically significant correlation. So on what basis do you say you have achieved "moderate" success?

Seeking medical advice on the internet is probably not a good idea and I think it is discouraged (forbidden?) by forum rules. So, I won't give you any advice, but instead tell you a story. A man goes to his doctor and says "Doctor, every time I put my hand straight up in the air my back hurts. What should I do?" The doctor replied, "Don't put your hand in the air."

Do you understand that the point I made above is the root of your error?

Well, one couldn't get a doctorate for refuting his posts, but there is certainly enough material there to get a headache!