Ding!

Read the original paper (well translated if you are an American). The whole point was that you can not have this coupling and have quantum effects manifest in the classical scale. There was never meant to be any implication that the cat was in some uncertain state. It was supposed to get the reader to realize that this does not and can not happen.

And, just try to get people to understand and believe that.....

Well, in the 80s, if I had a syntax error, that would have been caught by the compiler. Even using Emacs back then would find that.

But you are correct. Generative AI can't generally find missing commas.

The whole point of this thread is questioning this whole, "we only have two developers in the whole company now" meme. I can see value in AI. Modestly helpful. May make developers, particularly newer folks, more productive. Could certainly better automate and improve the build server and testing process. But I haven't seen anything even remotely close to the skills of a good developer.

All that these do is try to predict tokens. They are always very confident as they have no idea if they are right or wrong in coding.

Well, if I hold its hand long enough, it will eventually get the correct answer. Along the way, it will very confidently provide an incorrect answer.

This is also my experience. AI can do the simplest of tasks - poorly. Generating a Makefile or a Maven pom.xml file, sure. I was struggling to get simple unit test cases.

I was given a defect to fix. I found the problem quick enough. So I asked the AI.... It was completely useless.

Yes - exactly. Now you understand. We have over a hundred years of observations that can not be explained. This is evidence that there is something that is not explained. In fact, my original statement is exactly correct:

"There is no proof whatsoever that either dark energy or dark matter exist. There are phenomena that are not understood that may be explained by these, but there is no proof for either."

By proof, I mean either experimental, errr ahhh what's the word, oh "evidence". Show me one experiment. Show me one theoretical framework. There are none. We call the things that have been observed for over a hundred years that can not be explained by any theory or experiment "dark matter".

I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense at all.

You quote me as saying that there is plenty that we don't understand and that these have been proposed as solutions, but then somehow make the bizarre leap to me not acknowledging that these things exist.

Then you go on to say:

"Over a hundred years of observable facts suggest dark matter is real."

Yes, things are happening that we have no explanation for. Go science, figure it out. Because after a hundred years, we still have no idea. So 'dark matter' is synonymous with "well, we have to call it something, but really we have no idea what it is".

I agree, it is not a theory, it is a postulate. It irks me in the video that you linked when the person refers to 'the theory'. There is no theory. There is an observational basis only. To get to the level of 'theory', a strong mathematical and experimentation basis have to be developed.

If your statement is:

"Something that we do not understand is clearly happening, but we have no idea what is causing these things. Let's just all it 'dark matter' for the time being".

Then I have no problem with that. If 'dark matter' is just a placeholder term, and nothing more, than that is fine by me.

And, btw, the link to Dr. Becky, she states that we have no idea what dark matter is. Simply that this question has been unresolved for a long time.

I have several engineering degrees and have retired after a 35 year career.

If you take 100 readings with a device that has a +- 5 percent accuracy and average them together, you get an average value that has a +- 5 percent accuracy. Easy as that. Repeatedly reading the same value as fast as you can, and then averaging the values together, does not produce a more accurate value.

What you are talking about is akin to an error rate. If you test 6 percent of light bulbs coming off of an assembly line, then you can get the statistical failure rate to some degree of precision. If you test 20 percent of the light bulbs, you get a much more accurate idea of the failure rate. If you test the 6 percent, then you can not state the error rate to 5 significant digits.

I remember taking physics in high school. We started off with slide rules (yes, that long ago). It was nice because you could see where the calculation was getting blurry. "Well, somewhere between 4.5 and 4.6...". Then, calculators were introduced and people started to give results to 8 significant digits. That would end up getting you zero credit. You had to know how many digits were significant.

So when I see maps showing the temperature where I live to less than a tenth of a degree - in 1860 - I react with skepticism. You have to have a very larger amount of very accurate data. Oh wait, that was two tree rings from 40 miles away.... and some layers of mud in a pond 100 miles away.

Quote:

"Dark energy and dark matter are observed facts. They are not just placeholders"

They are not observer facts and they are just placeholders. There is plenty that we don't understand, these have been proposed as solutions. Many proposals have been made for any number of things throughout history - most were wrong. "We call this thing that we have no idea what it is 'dark matter' because we have observational issues with galactic rotations". "We call this thing that we have no idea at all what it is 'dark energy' because the rate of expansion of the universe doesn't make sense". Just placeholders for unexplained phenomena.

I love the personal attacks.

In any event, making repeated measurements with +- 5% accuracy can only result in a measurement with +- 5% accuracy.

And no, this is the Nyquist sampling rate. If you have a given temperature range, and you want to know the average to a tenth of a degree, then your measurement instrument has to be more accurate than a tenth of a degree, and your sample rate has to be high enough that the temperature does not change by more than one half of the tenth of a degree.

I learned about significant digits in High School.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Scientists also came up with more incorrect explanations than correct ones.

There is no proof whatsoever that either dark energy or dark matter exist. There are phenomena that are not understood that may be explained by these, but there is no proof for either.

Actually, you are mistaken. You can not take numerous measurements that are +- 2 degrees and average them to come up with a result that is more accurate than the original error.

If I want to determine the temperature of a room to one tenth of a degree, then I have to take measurements that are more accurate than a tenth of a degree. I also have to take them close enough together that the change is less than a tenth of a degree. You can't take the temperature ate the floor (cooler air) and get 20 degrees C +- 2 degrees, and then take the temperature at the ceiling (warmer air) and get 24 degrees C +- 2 degrees and then say that the average room temperature is 22.2 degrees. And the error bars would still be +- 2 degrees, so the 0.2 degree part is not significant.

Anyone that tells you that they know the temperature anywhere to one tenth of a degree is lying to you. Let alone what the temperature in some place 150 years ago was to a tenth of a degree.

Think about how many samples you would need to have in order to even state what the temperature of any given -room- is to a tenth of a degree.