Plus it totally contradicts you assertions above about the usefulness of Google and ChatGPT. Flip, flop, flip, flop!
You could at least have the integrity and intellectual honesty to reply directly to the actual real live scientist, a professional quantum physicist, who took the time to correctly rebut your wild conspiracy theories and gross misunderstandings of science, but you chose not to, and the crickets are still chirping away, awaiting your response.
But your lack of a response to him says so much more about you than your response possibly could (short of an admission that you are wrong and an apology for attacking scientists and a promise to do better next time).
Do you see the irony? Nope. You just contradicted yourself and flip-flopped yet again, reflexively clinging to your anti-scientific conspiracy theories even tighter, as revenge for being called out with the facts by a professional scientist, just like any dime-a-dozen foaming-at-the-mouth Q-Anon freak would. That only makes you even more wrong and ridiculous looking, and doesn't hurt or fool anybody else.
"what’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have."
Sean Carroll (2019): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-ph...
I don't think the guy you are at war with deserves so much attention and energy on your part. Not only is the point he's making not that different from what I linked above, although I reckon he gave it an arrogant spin, but the way you react somehow vindicates the parallels he established between science and religion. Not sure how Q-Anon is related to all of this.
You should learn to be an effective user of LLMs, and pre-emptively use then to debug your own anti-scientific ranting and raving postings full of logical fallacies about Quantum Mechanics.
I just twice effectively used ChatGPT to analyze your own conspiratorial posts, which seems to have pissed you off as if ChatGPT was being unfair to you, which is why it's so special that you've now flip-flopped into endorsing the use of LLMs to debug code, while on the same day you were so taken aback when somebody simply and effectively uses them to debug and analyze your own bullshit, and then an actual quantum scientist chimes in to agree with "the paid GPT4 that's much smarter" and strongly disagree with you too.
If you don't like your arguments being criticized by an LLM, then how do you feel about the criticism from an actual scientist, and why do you advocate having LLMs criticize your own code? Do you get just as angry at ChatGPT when it criticizes your code, as you do when it criticizes your logical fallacies about Quantum Mechanics? It's just a computer, you know, so your rage is misplaced. I hope you can debug your code better than you can debug your conspiracy theories, instead of clinging to them even tighter in the face of valid criticism. You must be fun at code reviews!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39376510
>jiggawatts 12 hours ago [flagged] | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you...
>Quantum mechanics is a religion with mathematics instead of just holy texts.
[...Gish Gallop of invalid arguments in your "[flagged]" posting redacted...]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39378453
>DonHopkins 8 hours ago | prev [–]
>It's really easy to spout bullshit like that, if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just trying to carry the water for religion by unfairly accusing science of having religion's fundamental flaws.
>It's a veritable Gish Gallop of logical fallacies:
>False Analogy: The argument compares quantum mechanics (QM) to religion, stating that both involve factions, orthodoxy, and unchallengeable beliefs. However, this is a false analogy because the nature and methods of scientific inquiry (e.g., empirical evidence, peer review, falsifiability) are fundamentally different from those of religious belief (which is based on faith and doctrine). The comparison oversimplifies and misrepresents both science and religion.
>Strawman Fallacy: The argument misrepresents the nature of quantum mechanics by suggesting that it operates purely on faith or dogma, similar to religious belief. This ignores the extensive empirical and theoretical work that underpins quantum mechanics.
>Ad Hominem (Circumstantial): The argument suggests that scientists who work in the field of QM are practicing a form of religious devotion rather than scientific inquiry. This is an ad hominem attack because it attempts to discredit QM by attacking the motives or character of its practitioners, rather than addressing the scientific validity of the field itself.
>Hasty Generalization: The argument makes broad generalizations about quantum mechanics and its practitioners based on limited observations (e.g., some disagreements among physicists). Scientific disagreements are a normal part of the scientific process and do not necessarily imply that the entire field is akin to a religion.
>Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The argument implies that because some aspects of QM (like wave-particle duality) seem counterintuitive or hard to comprehend, they must therefore be nonsensical or based on faith. This is an appeal to ignorance, as it suggests a lack of understanding or evidence is equivalent to proof of the argument's correctness.
>Overgeneralization/Sweeping Generalization: The argument overgeneralizes the behavior of scientific communities, suggesting that all scientific disagreements lead to "warring factions" and are akin to religious schisms. This overlooks the nuanced and varied ways in which scientific communities debate, test, and revise theories.
>No True Scotsman: By defining 'true' science as being free of disagreements or factions (and suggesting QM doesn't meet this standard), the argument potentially commits a No True Scotsman fallacy, where arbitrary criteria are set up to define what 'real' science should look like.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39379328
>jiggawatts 6 hours ago [flagged] [dead] | parent [–]
[...apoplectic attempt at point by point rebuttal in your "[flagged] [dead]" posting redacted, followed by emotional attack on me using ChatGPT to school you by analyzing and enumerating your mistakes...]
>It boils down to this: I don't even have to know how to do a thing myself to recognise that other people don't know either. If two of them disagree on matters of fact, one of them is wrong. If many of them disagree in many ways, more than likely they are all wrong. This same criticism is popularly levelled against religions (plural!) of which there are many mutually exclusive variants, even within one main branch such as Islam or Christianity. They regularly kill each other over such disagreements, such as Shia vs Sunni or Protestant vs Catholic.
>You're saying I shouldn't criticise this.
>On what basis do you think that?
>Or did ChatGPT think this for you?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39379755
>bowsamic 4 hours ago | unvote | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you...
>I’m really confused here as a quantum physicist myself. Yes there is huge disagreement and yes it’s a problem, but also what is the alternative? It’s not like we can just give up on quantum mechanics because you personally have philosophical problems with it. My task is to reduce the fundamental quantum noise that we see in gravitational wave detectors after removing all the classical noise. How would it be constructive to just say “let’s pretend there is no quantum noise?”
>To me it’s exciting that there is no clear interpretation for quantum mechanics, and it also nicely retroactively casts doubt on our interpretation for all previous theories: did classical mechanics just coincidentally present as deterministic? Etc. maybe you think questions about determinism are woo but I think that would be quite extreme
>Honestly, I don’t see why it’s a problem that there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39381147
>DonHopkins 13 minutes ago | edit | delete [–]
>He's apoplectic that ChatGPT was able to cut through his bluster and bullshit and enumerate his Gish Gallop of logical fallacies like a hot knife cutting through butter. If it stings so much, then maybe he should first run his own ridiculous conspiracy theories and baseless accusations against science and false equivalencies about religion through ChatGPT himself before posting them here, to strengthen them up and educate himself, instead of embarrassing himself by being so thoroughly and effectively schooled by a mere LLM and an actual quantum physicist.
>Original Argument:
>Quantum Mechanics as Religion: Quantum mechanics (QM) is likened to a religion, with disagreements among physicists, an orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, and adherence to seemingly nonsensical concepts like wave-particle duality.
>Logical Fallacies and Mistakes:
>False Analogy: Comparing QM to religion overlooks fundamental differences in methodologies and goals. Science is empirical and self-correcting; religion is based on faith.
>Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents QM as purely faith-based or dogmatic. QM is grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematics.
>Ad Hominem: Attacks the character or motives of QM practitioners, rather than addressing the scientific validity of QM itself.
>Hasty Generalization: Overgeneralizes from disagreements among physicists to claim the entire field is unscientific.
>Appeal to Ignorance: Assumes that because aspects of QM are counterintuitive, they must be nonsensical or faith-based.
>Overgeneralization/Sweeping Generalization: Claims that disagreements in QM are indicative of flaws in all scientific fields, ignoring the diversity and complexity of scientific disciplines.
>No True Scotsman: Imposes arbitrary criteria for what constitutes 'real' science, excluding QM based on its interpretive disagreements.
>Validity of Arguments:
>Limited Validity in Recognizing Disagreements: The argument validly recognizes the existence of disagreements and different interpretations within QM, which is a natural aspect of any evolving scientific field.
>Misinterpretation of Nature of Science: However, the argument fails to appreciate the empirical basis of science and the role of theoretical diversity in scientific progress.
>Rebuttal from an Actual Scientist:
>Quantum Mechanics as a Practical and Evolving Science: The scientist highlights the practical applications of QM, the excitement of unresolved questions, and the evolving nature of scientific understanding.
>Assessment of Rebuttal:
>Practicality and Utility: The rebuttal correctly emphasizes the practical applications of QM, which are well-established and empirically validated.
>Scientific Progress and Open Questions: The scientist’s view of the unresolved aspects of QM as exciting and valuable is in line with the nature of scientific inquiry, which thrives on exploration and continuous refinement.
>Conclusion:
>The original argument conflates the philosophical and interpretative aspects of QM with religious belief, using several logical fallacies. It overlooks the empirical foundation and practical success of QM.
>The rebuttal from the scientist provides a more accurate representation of QM as a practical, empirically grounded, and continuously evolving field of science. The existence of different interpretations and unresolved questions is not a flaw but a driving force for further research and understanding.