we don't even know yet if the calculations in question here are not reversible. ??? If the calculations are reversible, there would be no argument. Everyone wo

we don't even know yet if the calculations in question here are not reversible. ??? If the calculations are reversible, there would be no argument. Everyone would know the base data. I think you are kind of pushing it with your quicksilver example; I don't see how taking a single measurement is "averaging". If you mean to say that there is some built-in variance - well, that's true. But the fact is the variance itself can be established by other scientists if they know the model of thermometer that is being used. This is the essence of repeatability! Now, imagine that a scientist had many temperature readings, and then they did some kind of complex calculation which involved regression analysis, statistical modeling, etc. These are the types of calculations that could easily have errors. Without the initial recordings, the results are unverifiable. That doesn't make them necessarily useless, but I wouldn't lean on those kinds of results.