You deleted the verbatim comment after it was pointed out. One was in thread and one was a stand alone comment. I was curious which was the throwaway so clicked into both profiles
It's a direct quote, formatted as written. And actually so many people read it that he got invited to do conference key notes on his articles. Nice flex, though.
Actually, we do need evidence for premises which are not definitions or basic assumptions (axioms). Graviton is still a hypothetical particle and falls under neither of two categories - Definitions or axioms.
The statement "if gravity is quantum, this was an interaction with a graviton" is true even if it ultimately turns out that gravity is not quantum. The statement is about the consequences of a premise, and is not falsified if that premise is false.
The only way this statement could be false would be to have quantum gravity but no particle that mediates this interaction - which doesn't seem plausible almost by definition.
That's quite an exotic claim! If Sound and Temperature can emerge without a sound particle or temperature particle, why is it not plausible for gravity to exists without graviton?
Though, I get it that mainstream view from physicists is Graviton is the most 'likely' cause, if the gravity is proven to be quantized. But even they would have the humility to accept that this is a theory yet to be proven and observed!
A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.
not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.
If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.
However, for me to claim that quantum Gravity is only emergent without a particle like graviton's mediation, I would need to present evidence. Just like this claim - quantum gravity is only possible from gravitons.
Ohh, yes, I had not at all understood that this was what you were referring to, especially as I had already suggested this is a real, though to my mind implausible, possibility.
Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.
So, basically Gravity is quantum if Gravity is fundamental (not emergent)?
If I am understanding your counterpoint correctly, then this argument can only be concluded satisfactorily if either Graviton is observed (proving is existence) or something more fundamental and deeper is observed (proving that quantum gravity can emerge without graviton).
This is a global issue with modern particle physics - scientists imagine something and then blink, and two decades and a hundred of books had been published while that something is still not present in any test. It would be fine if that happened rarely, but it seems that it's just par for course nowadays.
I like Grok 4.6 the model, I like it for a number of reasons. I like Grok Build too.
However, I've pointed Grok 4.6 at a fairly complex codebase and asked it to review/audit it for issues and it's come back with a whole laundry list of issues. I've passed that list to Kimi and Claude and they both were like "a couple of good catches but some of those are not issues at all". Grok 4.6 is noticeably weaker that Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 5, Claude Opus 4.8, Kimi K3, GLM 5.3, … your suggestion to use Grok 4.6 instead of a recent Claude doesn't pass empirical scrutiny.
God forbid a well-meaning person need privacy and solitude to get work done in a meaningful way, just as other inventors and geniuses did in their private homes throughout history, and later came together with others to share their findings.
This idea that we need to be married to other co-workers throughout each day has all the same dysfunctional attributes as a nanny state or a daycare, where employees are treated as untrustworthy and needing to be monitored at all times.
The fact that talented engineers are able to contribute meaningfully, with few errors, and with brilliant solutions, all on their own, is proof enough that coding in solitude is a completely reasonable preference, that's shared among most of the engineers I've met in my career.
NO TOM I DONT WANT TO FUCKING MARRY YOU GOD FORBID, ME, A TRULY TALENTED ENGINEER AND GENIUS, TRY TO GET ANYTHING DONE FUCK THIS FUCKING NANNY STATE BULLSHIT as you return to clipping your toenails in the office
Truthfully, I don't mind pairing on something if someone needs help and doesn't mind doing it asynchronously instead of sitting on a video call all day pointlessly when Slack will work just fine. :)
The reason I went to hyperbole with this one was because a prior startup I worked for required everyone to pair on every ticket, whether they liked it or not. I simply refused, and they were fine with it, because they liked the work I did. If I needed to collab on anything, I'd just talk to the other engineers. And guess what? We survived and did amazing work together as a team!
This was modeled after my former coworker Tom who had to be told not to clip his toenails in the open office, and then told not to do it in the lounge room even if he was alone
What if you're on Windows where it's much less convenient? Also, latex and others substitute that for the proper dash, so one might do it out of habit.
Also also,it's en-dash, not n-dash. And it's correct in British English, where the em-dash largely fell out of use.
Ok. Today I learned. But I'll still continue to use -- because I don't care enough to be correct and most people will understand me regardless. Being pedantic about it doesn't seem very productive.
