Genady

I guess it means, every 'today' of your life. IOW, your horizon is your life time. Then why do you care about the climate change?

I think that almost everyone cares about what happens to humanity in the next several months. OTOH, almost nobody cares what happens to humanity in several million years. Many people care about several decades. What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about? And why?

What are the causes of this? In what sense are they irreversible?

When my children were 8 - 10 they were absolutely disgusted by people smoking and sweared to never smoke in their life. Guess what happened when they were 14 - 16 ...

I think you mean scales in both statements, i.e., "I thought to discuss a list of experiments that can deceive scales. We are talking about both conventional and ultra-precise scales. " But I am not sure what is a meaning of "deceive scales." Maybe you can give an example of what you are talking about.

I am not sure what is total closeness, but it makes sense that for two particles to become entangled they need to interact. However, the situation gets tricky when you have a system of three particles. They don't need to interact all together, or pairwise to become entangled. For example, you can get particles A and B entangled by making them interact. Then, while A is separated, you can get B and C entangled by making them interact. This can make A entangled with the pair BC, although A is far away from both, and A never interacts with C. This is what happens in quantum teleportation.

I don't think @joigus has replied to the second question. I would reply, no. Because "touching" implies a spacetime relation while entanglement does not.

This reminded me of a Particle Physics course I took once. The professor had started with something like this: There are no particles; end of the class. +1

There still is a gap in my understanding: I can feel this pressure on me, but why would I feel the pressure on others?

Yes, in this sense: They are unlike anything that we usually visualize as a 'body'.

I think one cannot. I agree with this. Re homophobia, I still don't have any idea why straight people have any feelings about some people being homosexual. This is after many years of being adult straight male. I also discovered the existence of homosexuals the way described above, and my reaction was then, and still is, so what. I was shocked to discover that there was a law (in the former USSR) against it and that people go to jail for it. I could not understand it then and I still don't understand, why would anybody care.

How does one separate the "nature" from the "nurture"?

Yes.

I did it again? Quoted from the wrong place... I am sorry.

Yes. There are no surface-to-surface touching points in atomic and subatomic scales. No, it's not a limit, but a distance where the system has smallest potential energy.

Atoms are almost empty. Their nuclei are many degrees of magnitude smaller than atoms and electrons are points with no size. If there were no other forces, atoms would just go through each other. What stops them from passing each other is their electromagnetic fields and a quantum effect called Pauli exclusion principle.

I have figured it out. 1) Misspelling: 'in revenge' is 'v mesti' in the OP language while 'v meste' means 'in place'. One letter was wrong before translation. 2) 'Earth' and 'land' are the same word in the OP language. So, the expression, "earth in one revenge", should've been, "land in one place." And the question, meant to be, "Are there planets where all land is in one place?"

So, this is one area where the system needs change.

I don't believe it, and you don't give any such data.

Yes, and I think the teacher should ignore them and focus on the other 20%. Then the people who deserve it will get more of the teacher's time, energy, creativity, flexibility, and eventually even better education.

Right. I think that educators' role is to teach well those who want to learn rather than to fight cheating. This is what should drive design of education methods and system.

People should start adding a new section to their resume/CV, 'Prior reincarnations.'

This is misunderstanding. I was talking about people with degree, and compared those who got it while wishing to learn vs. those who got it while cheating. The last statement of that paragraph, meant to be in this context. Sorry, for not making it clear. This question, means to ask if surgeons and structural engineers get responsible jobs only because they have the degrees. I know that the answer is, no, they do not. This is why my answer to the question, is negative.

No, I'm not. But, really, are surgeons or structural engineers placed in highly responsible positions just based on their degrees out of school?

@geordief I don't think so. Those people will get out of school with knowledge and skills while others will not. Those people will be better at job interviews. They will succeed in jobs where others will fail. Degrees don't matter - job performance does.