The quantum hoax | Dominic Walliman, Joscha Bach, Ruth Oulton

Will quantum computing revolutionise the world? Dominic Walliman, Joscha Bach and Ruth Oulton discuss the hype around quantum computing.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-quantum-hoax...
If we believe the headlines, quantum computing is going to revolutionise the world. But some leading scientists are arguing it is little more than a hoax. Quantum computers, they claim, have fundamental problems that show no sign of being addressed or, in principle, of being solvable. In this debate, our renowned speakers reveal the science from the hype on all things quantum computing.
#quantumcomputing #sciencecommunication #technology
Quantum photonic expert Ruth Oulton, leading AI researcher Joscha Bach and science writer and KZbin sensation Dominic Walliman debate the potential of quantum computing. Neil Turok hosts.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@moonchart]

Dominic lost me at “they’re clever people, they know what they’re doing.”

[@Kneedragon1962]

[Roll eyes] I was told about quantum computers in 1995 ~ 6. Far as I know, not much has changed. There are a few very particular algorithms, very specific applications, where a few qbits would be massively faster and better. But those things make up way under 1% of the general overall computing workload. For the other 99%+ ~ a perfectly conventional binary system computer, such as Intel and AMD make today, works just fine. "But think how much better my Micro$oft Outlook would run on a quantum computer." That's the point ~ it wouldn't. You can't run conventional 'software' on a quantum computer. It is not and never was, a replacement for conventional mainstream computing. There are certain algorithms where it may be sensationally good. Many of those have to do with cryptography and code breaking. But for almost everything else that computers do every day, a quantum computer is useless. [An hour later] There was a clever epitaph given to fusion energy, many years ago. They said it was going to change the world and make us all rich and fat and happy, but it was thirty years in the future, AND ALWAYS WOULD BE. Quantum computing ~ not exactly the same, but there is a common theme here.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Commercial nuclear fusion is actually more likely to succeed on a shorter timescsle than quantum computing.

[@simesaid]

*"But think how much better my Micro$oft Outlook would run on a quantum computer."* I'd be happy if my Micro$oft Outlook ran (in some usable sense) on a classical computer!

[@Kneedragon1962]

@@simesaid~ LMFAO ~ Ok, you got me.

[@simesaid]

@@Kneedragon1962 not sure if we'll see random yellow bricks quantum tunnelling any time soon, but I _do_ hear Lego are releasing a Limited Edition "Copenhagen Interpretation" version of the Millenium Falcon - even obeys the Pauli Exclusion Zone and all that! 😌

[@Kneedragon1962]

@@simesaid~ If they're going to quantum tunnel, I hope they're wearing their Ruby Slippers. ? No, Virginia, I'm not talking about Ruby on Rails. I am tempted to play silly-buggers with Schrodinger's Cat and the Uncertainty principle, but ... [sigh] My sense of humour is bit shaky and vicious right now. My wife just had a stroke. I want to be social and funny, distract myself while I wait, but I might get it wrong, say something I shouldn't have. My picture of Star Whores lore and the stolen election and the Right-Wing / Fascist take-over of America, it's all in jumbled heap for me just now.

[@rikimitchell916]

There is a fundamental disparity at play when comparing quantum collapse and algorithmic execution. Though one might simply make a measure of task completion time and derive a value of efficacy, this is not a measure of the methodology per se.

[@dchuns1]

Well, yes. Also I believe that it can be demonstrated that counter-negative up-quark spin shows that the prime variant is largely questionable, albeit it on alternate Tuesdays, and all the more so in November.

[@DH-rj2kv]

@@dchuns1 Well played, Sir, well played!

[@Crytoma]

The fact this is behind a pay-wall on their website says enough.

[@FallenStarFeatures]

The notion of 'tapping into the CPU of the universe" is something I'd expect from a Marvel Cinematic Universe script.

[@ghetto02143]

Thank you, thank you, that wonderful comment made laugh with tears. So glad others are able to see through the quantum BS. lol

[@Fonsoknows33]

the metaphor of "tapping into the CPU of the universe" is more than a flourish of science fiction. It reflects ongoing efforts in quantum computing and information theory to understand the fabric of reality itself. Theoretical physicist John Wheeler's concept of "it from bit" posits that information forms the basis of physical reality. Quantum entanglement and nonlocality experiments, such as those building on the Bell test, provide empirical evidence that challenges classical notions of space and time, aligning with the metaphorical concept of a universal computational process.

[@Fonsoknows33]

@@ghetto02143 skepticism is the cornerstone of scientific progress. However, dismissing emerging theories as "quantum BS" overlooks the rigorous scientific exploration behind these ideas. Quantum biology, for example, has demonstrated quantum effects in photosynthesis, bird navigation, and possibly smell. These phenomena were once considered impossible by classical standards but are now empirically validated, pushing the boundaries of our understanding of quantum mechanics in living systems. while the integration of quantum mechanics with neuroscience remains speculative, it is grounded in ongoing research and empirical investigation. Theories once considered speculative or metaphorical often pave the way for paradigm shifts in science, as history has shown us from quantum mechanics to relativity. Engaging with these ideas critically yet openly is essential for advancing our understanding of consciousness and the universe.

[@ivilivo]

Even if alchemy never managed to purify matter into gold- it led to loads of experiments and was crucial for the evolution of western science.

[@schmetterling4477]

That is actually true. That is also what the modern VC system does: it collects money using hype but funds a lot of smart people who are occasionally come up with something very useful. ;-)

[@burrahobbithalf]

misleading title. Without "computing" in the title it seems to imply a major pillar of science is all wrong. Nope, just a developing technology.

[@abdelkaioumbouaicha]

📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 Quantum computing has attracted significant investment and attention, but some scientists argue that it is little more than a hoax due to fundamental problems that have not been addressed. 🧐 Quantum computing relies on qubits that are sensitive and need to operate at low temperatures. Critics argue that no practical results have been achieved using this technology. 🚀 The complexity of quantum computing makes it difficult for many people to understand its implications, leading to potential misunderstandings and hype. 💡 Additional Insights and Observations: 💬 "Quantum computing is an extremely bold proposal that suggests we can achieve something that nature hasn't done." - Yosha Bark 📊 No specific data or statistics were mentioned in the video. 🌐 The video does not reference any external sources or references. 📣 Concluding Remarks: The video explores the hype surrounding quantum computing and presents different perspectives on its potential and limitations. While some scientists argue that it may be a hoax due to fundamental problems, others see it as an investment in computing as a whole and a potential revolution beyond current technology. The complexity of quantum computing and the lack of practical results contribute to the misunderstandings and hype surrounding it. Generated using TalkBud

[@NondescriptMammal]

In other words, very little useful specific information is to be found in this discussion.

[@johncarter1150]

Yosha Bark, thanks AI, LMAO

[@SpokoSpoko]

I heard so many times the argument that the big companies like Google or others are smart people and they would not put money on something which is not gonna work. So you have highly specialized scientists, who understand physics and phenomena of the quantum world on one side and the businessmen on the other and you believe the business men. Maybe the leading scientists and Nobel price winners should ask Google for advice on how to unify quantum theory with special relativity and the century old pzzle would be solved?

[@yeroca]

Quantum computers have been built and do work... it's just that right now they don't have enough qubits to run faster than a conventional computer in the problem space they are supposed to be good at. Adding more qubits sounds easy, but it's taken decades to go from a few qubits up to less than 500 qubits. Estimates are that a useful quantum computer would take around 10,000 qubits.

[@anonymousalexander6005]

@@yeroca it's fundamentally a logarithm of the complexity of discrete bits. In other words, every n bits for lgn qubits. The toughest questions are n! over 1000+ prepositions, so yeah we need quantum computers, approximations are not enough for some problems. It's purely a question of how much funding should be allocated, and to compare AI vs quantum is hilarious, it's just that the AI theoreticians are salty because their specialized degree isn't being directly funded by quantum.

[@yeroca]

@@anonymousalexander6005 Interesting. I didn't know about the log(qubits) relationship with usability for problems.

[@caioporto9234]

​@anonymousalexander6005 ohhhhh so true. Soooo true. I really don't understand the amount of flack QC are getting right now. Other than being salty, or grant wars.

[@howardlandman6121]

Shor and Grover cannot scale to any useful size. They both depend on rotating the LSB by incredibly tiny angles, which can't be done reliably. I first wrote about this 2 years ago.

[@colinhiggs70]

It's worth remembering that quantum physics has already produced very useful computers: the normal computers we use today are highly dependent upon quantum phenomena. I bring that up because it seems to be a point that is sometimes lost in the discussion.

[@MrSimonduan]

In what way the normal computer is dependent on quantum phenomena to work?

[@colinhiggs70]

@MrSimonduan quantum mechanics is necessary to properly understand how semiconductor energy levels work - the underpinning of all of those transistors that make chips go. There's talk of making transistors that use quantum tunnelling to work, instead of just having to account for it as a leakage current (or maybe they have done that already: I'm not an expert). Then there's flash memory, which uses quantum tunnelling to erase cells. Chips are small enough now that the "wires" carrying signals between the parts have to be thought of more as wave guides for the electron wavefunction than as normal wires. There will be other examples but, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not really an expert in chip design.

[@bornatona3954]

Garbage

[@bornatona3954]

You all (quantum fantasers)have zero clue about electrical engineering

[@bornatona3954]

@@armandaneshjoo you representing (most of us) ? Who exactly? Why you hiding under "we", and give yourself credibility in that pathetic way. You are not electrical engineer 100000%

[@waltertoki1]

this would be more interesting if an expert explained the latest advances in quantum dots.

[@yeroca]

Quantum dots are one path toward quantum computers, but they aren't the only one.

[@Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing]

Really like the YT chaps arguments. Factual, with references and very little opinion. Actually how are they progressing. I say 5 years for a truly useful quantum computer that cracks a BTC wallet.

[@operaguy1]

3:20 "Go below and tap the CPU of the universe." Oh! Perhaps we would then finally behold the mechanism of the Plato/Kant noumenal realm. AKA 'see the mind of God.'

[@paulusbrent9987]

QC is a dead end. Let's discuss it in 10 years. My prediction is it will have not met the expectation.

[@caioporto9234]

Just like classical computers in the sixties, or ai 20 years ago... trying to measure a developing field accomplishments by where it is now is ridiculous. Who would have thought that quantum mechanics would produce so much of what we see today? Back then when we couldn't even calculate slightly more complicated systems...

[@schmetterling4477]

@@caioporto9234 The problems with quantum computing are fundamental and they can't be overcome by scaling. The field does, by the way, produce some really great output... by getting people to think harder about classical computation and the results of that are probably much more interesting than the actual QC results.

[@user-io4sr7vg1v]

Not even close. Classical computers were able to prove themselves immediately. This looks like strange tinfoil/goldfoil assemblies.

[@caioporto9234]

@@user-io4sr7vg1v Just as quantum computers have been able to. The thing is, what you consider prove today and in the sixties are vastly different monsters. In the eighties we could barely calculate the energy of water with very bad precision. That's basically where we are right now with quantum computers.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@user-io4sr7vg1v Quantum computing has been going on since the beginning of the universe, you just didn't know about it. ;-)

[@billymania11]

I think about a certain concept or maxim from time to time. Which is Nature always acts with minimal effort and maximum efficiency. It's a principle that maybe humans should follow. Regarding computers, analog processing is very efficient and seems to require less energy. True, the answers are not precise to an arbitrary number of decimals but maybe that is unnecessary. Regarding quantum principles being utilized in computers, I have my doubts that this is a worthwhile approach.

[@schmetterling4477]

Quantum mechanics is NOT analog. Not even close. It's not even on the same planet as the analog ballpark. ;-)

[@trapmouth]

14:35 A subtle thought that is in error may yet give rise to fruitful inquiry that can establish truths of great value. - Isaac Asimov

[@audiodead7302]

Whether or not it is worth investing in QC partly depends on what the alternative investment opportunities are.

[@sudd3660]

how about investing in our future? organic food production, pollution free mass transportation, cleaning up our pollution, remake our economy to be sustainable.

[@caioporto9234]

​@@sudd3660 last century's future (today) technology was made with basic science discoveries funded 50 or more years ago. The thought that only applied sciences have merit is shortsighted and superficial. Not mentioning the irony that your commented was only made possible because said investments were made in the last.

[@ArfArfBarkBark]

Google thinks its AI will create 'consciousness' computing that will then exceed building quantum computers and for cheaper.

[@ElJaf17]

All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace by Adam Curtis

[@modatamoproblems1288]

So...there is no one who is actually arguing against the hype...not much of a debate when all panelists agree.

[@schmetterling4477]

We taught you in school to use your critical thinking skills. Why do you need anybody to argue against "the hype" for you? What happened to doing your own research? ;-)

[@austindaniel7862]

Joscha had a pretty sensational take.

[@user-io4sr7vg1v]

Sensational. Yet 100% rational. It's an obvious hoax.

[@Fonsoknows33]

How can the speculative integration of quantum mechanics with neuroscience, specifically through concepts like quantum neurology and the idea of a universal, interconnected consciousness, be empirically investigated to validate or refute the theory that individual consciousness is a manifestation of a universal consciousness governed by quantum principles?

[@Fonsoknows33]

The speculative integration i mention hinges on empirical evidence, which is gradually emerging from the fields of quantum physics and neurology. Recent studies, such as those utilizing quantum dots for tracking neural activity, hint at the quantum mechanical behavior at the biological level. Additionally, the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff suggests that quantum computations in microtubules within brain neurons could contribute to consciousness. While controversial, this theory provides a framework for empirical testing, leveraging advancements in quantum computing and neuroimaging technologies to explore the quantum-neurological interface.

[@SloverOfTeuth]

As I understand it, quantum theory is one of the main legs in our understanding of physics, i.e. of the universe around us. But there has always been a weakness in our understanding of what happens when the wave function collapses, i.e. when particles or systems go from a superposition to a single classically observable state. Quantum computers rely on generating, sustaining, and collapsing superpositions in order to function, and already are capable of functioning. In my limited, hazy, understanding of these things, I think that if one is willing to view research into quantum computing at least in part as research into applied quantum physics, that research potentially becomes valuable in terms of its contribution to physics knowledge it might make, which might include improvements in practical techniques which help advance pure quantum physics research. Whether it will yield more powerful computers, whether those computers will entirely supplant conventional approaches to computing, and whether those computers will yield more money than was invested in the research are different questions.

[@anonymes2884]

Yeah, you're broadly correct. What you're describing is known as the measurement problem and has been a point of contention in physics for almost a hundred years. (despite what you may hear in KZbin comments sections, it's absolutely _not_ a solved problem, we _don't_ know what happens physically during "collapse of the wavefunction" and in fact we don't even know for sure that the wavefunction collapses at all - anyone that claims otherwise either misunderstands the difference between the formalism of quantum mechanics and its physical interpretations OR will shortly be on their way to Stockholm to pick up their Nobel Prize for definitively answering one of the biggest outstanding questions in physics. I'll leave it up to the discerning reader to decide which is more likely :)

[@SloverOfTeuth]

@@anonymes2884 Thanks. For what it's worth, I'm very much on the relative state model side of the divide at present. I see no evidence pointing uniquely to wave function collapse if relative state is a permitted alternative hypothesis, and I do think collapse can in principle be shown to be inconsistent with other knowledge. I think that pundits going on about ill-specified "many worlds" theories distract from that. Hopefully quantum computing research will clarify things.

[@minimal3734]

I'm personally not a fan of the 'collapse' idea.

[@davidrandell2224]

QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck, Bohr etc.

[@aqilshamil9633]

Here's a funny story : Dad , what's a butterfly ? Son , there're thousands of butterfly Wow dad , now I know WHAT IS butterfly ....... If anyone reading this short quip I wrote can't differentiate between quantities and things , I say why do you even go to school for .. Ontos of something clearly are not reducible to quantity of something .

[@iainbozfelt]

AI superintelligence will come along with cold fusion, quantum computing and of course the meaning of life...

[@AlgoNudger]

So many highly-exaggerated hypes, today! 😂

[@maxtabmann6701]

Quantum simulating quantum i.e. a hoax simulating a hoax - great!

[@johnmcmenemy3864]

Very reasonable answers from all the speakers imo

[@pauljmn9135]

is quantum computing based on statistics? (in which case is precision at risk)?

[@dickybannister5192]

no.

[@dickybannister5192]

@@armandaneshjoo no it isnt. also the inference you derive is not correct. they are apples and oranges. start from the basics. there are 2 simplistic categorisations. QC can be used to model real Q systems (as the guy says). in that case "error corrections are in place" is fallastic for 2 reasons. first, you are trying to model a Q system with a Q system. if you "get it wrong" you wont get the results you were looking for. second, there is a difference between learning and understanding which is important. there is a good video on the IAS recently. I'll look it up. the second category is to do what the other guy was talking about earlier, complexity theory and algorithms. you are correct that bar one caveat: we have a Q algorithm for factoring. and any "solver" we find for other problems which arent NP but we have no classical algorithm for will work in the same way. either we can hold together a system that produces results or we cant. statistics only comes into it in terms of the likelihood of getting the right answer, i.e. how many times you have to run the thing to have a chance.

[@dickybannister5192]

it is "Complexity of Learning and Creating Quantum Systems" Robert Huang

[@dickybannister5192]

put it like this: you give me (old white man with no ball skills) a coin and a basket ball. you go, flip the coin and if it is heads, shoot the hoop. if I get a hoop, you learn something. what do you think is going to happen? what would happen if you did the same with an NBA professional? you ARE going to be able to tell the difference...

[@dickybannister5192]

also, what the first guy said at the beginning about nature (nature is classical and we can now do different stuff) is a little bit strange. for 2 reasons. first, classical calculations seems to imply that, for example, photosynthesis must involve very specific quantum processes (to get the efficiency they get). but, on the other hand if the way we do quantum calculations actually involves things that are possible in nature, then that is bonkers. it means nature is doing practically infinite calculations (for 500 particles it is 2^(2^500) for example). Feynman queried this. investigating what this means with things like NLTS and qPCP conjectures is fascinating (see Why Can’t We Classically Describe Quantum Systems? - Chinmay Nirkhe on the IAS channel here) but, being able to do it (or not) is part of the win for physics.

[@monkerud2108]

there is no such thing as a quantum computer that has anything special about it, that just a bunch of emergent particles do not. tapping into natures cpu is a misnomer, anything, even an abacus is using a physical system to compute stuff, there is no essential difference, we use physical phenomena to process information, that is it, lets stop making it out to be something mysterious and weird. it sounds like quantum computers are doing magic, or in some sense transcends the informational bounds quantum mechanics entails, which is just nonsense. if this comes of as rude then i am sorry, but it is important to not convince ourselves, or other people that magic is happening, or that we are doing something a lot cooler, or more important than we are, the reality of this kind of analog computation is enough, it is more powerful in principle than classical computers, that is enough, explain why and how, or don't speak on it, thinking that quantum computers are tapping into the sub strait is completely silly, it is just using physical processes as described by quantum mechanics to do operations and measure outcomes, and form that you can take an input state to an output state, measure the distributions of outcomes at the end and that is it. the only difference is that the outcomes are structures by the dependence between the qbits set up during the computation, in a classical computer you could have to compute that dependence, but in a quantum computer, nature takes care of the dependence given our gates, that is is, nothing more to see here.

[@PeterKoperdan]

@@armandaneshjoo We don’t know what everything is made of. If you can’t even accept this basic fact, what about the rest of your views and assumptions? Intellectual dishonesty will get us nowhere.

[@PeterKoperdan]

@@armandaneshjoo You mistaken hypotheses and theories for experimental data and proofs. You mistaken belief for science.

[@PeterKoperdan]

@@armandaneshjoo It's fascinating that you piece together some knowledge that you interpret in some way, possibly mirroring some existing scientists' view(s), but then completely ignore all those scientists that would disagree with your notions. To help you on your quest for knowledge I recommend you do this: #1 Google the term "epistemic humility". #2 Search for the existing scientific opinions (hypotheses and theories) that contradict your own.

[@swoondrones]

BUXBE

[@amincamus6337]

As a post-materialistic human being: im here to say, im just trying to hold the "text-believers and anti "somewhat"-text believers" tight together, so we can witness a "perfect" future to all of us!

[@andrewcawdell]

"It's not a hoax, because companies like Google and IBM don't plough hundreds of millions of dollars..." The Theranos debacle would indicate that the willingness of wealthy investors to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into a project is no guarantee of its integrity. A good reason why quantum computing is not a hoax is that many researchers, working on various projects at different locations, are getting measurable results. Unlike "cold fusion" for example. The real question is about the potential applications and usefulness of the technology.

[@user-io4sr7vg1v]

Measureable results of what? Is there any practical use or just fanciful images of computers that have gold bits of foil everywhere.

[@andrewcawdell]

@@user-io4sr7vg1v The real question is about the potential applications and usefulness of the technology.

[@matishakabdullah5874]

🧔

[@Usernumber777]

Hi I’m a time travelling A.I.

[@johnmcmenemy3864]

Any "noise" would surely blow this idea out of the water ...

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

first of all what he is saying wrong because they already made a chip that works on light that can create binary input output based on individual light frequencies Silicon-photonic (SiPh) chip, so basically me with the most rudimentary understanding can easily refute their crappy talking points

[@christopherellis2663]

It's a lot like crypto 😅

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

this is literally like adults talking to kids

[@jonnyleeg4058]

A computer scientist leaves the computer science company he works at to become a youtuber. And then claims he tries to be measured about how he talks about the legitimacy of the potential success or failure of quantum computers. 🤔

[@Angels_Are_Vengeful]

Give me a Billion dollars and I'll give you 3 billion quantum computers... or just reach into your pocket, grab a quarter and flip it. That's your quantum computer. Why only 3 billion quarters? Because I'm the CEO and I'm taking a billion quarters in wages.

[@bornatona3954]

Quantum garbage 😂😂😂

[@Angels_Are_Vengeful]

You can tell which two out of the three's livelihoods depend on or will be enriched by investment in Quantum Computing. That youtube guy sounds like your typical cryptocurrency CONfidence man a-la Sam Bankman Fraud.

[@ipdavid1043]

It is not a hoax

[@schmetterling4477]

No, it isn't, but there is a lot of overpromising going on that uses the fact that the money people are mostly clueless about physics, math and computer science. ;-)

[@user-io4sr7vg1v]

Yes it is.

[@kasperlindvig3215]

Quantum computers will only become a thing once optical chips are being made. We are still quite a few years away from that. Give it some time, 6+ years and you will begin to see some progress in the area.

[@yeroca]

Quantum computers are already a thing. They just can't compete with classical computers yet due to not having enough qubits.

[@teachermichaelmaalim6103]

A fool and his invested funding are soon parted

[@veronicanoordzee6440]

@ 7:43 NO, WE DON'T NEED THAT. FOR ONCE, WE NEED TO BE CONTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND ADDRESS MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS.

[@DavidWilliams-yh6pq]

Next step quantum robots

[@stevenverrall4527]

I would love to see a quantum cat! Would Schrodinger roll in his grave?

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

ok so it's already 8 min in and still not anything smarter than a 4-year-old would think of lol people are so annoying its insane

[@samrowbotham8914]

If the Universe is simulated then someone already figured it out and created it.

[@MilushevGeorgi]

The speed of light is a convenient constraint for a simulation. Also per sightings, those tictocs flying around and getting detected by the military, the way they don’t react with air and water, seems as the representation of a higher dimensional object into 3d space, a way for the creators to observe in 3d. Also the fiftyfiftyness of the wave function collapse looks like randomization for the sake of creating conscious life in the simulation. Lastly entropy seems as a pre planned way to disperse concentrated energy, be the reason for life creation. I honestly prefer that we live in a simulation, I’d hate it if we are the base, it will be something in addition to the universe, they can give us the cheat sheet on fusion energy and interstellar travel. I like to imagine that the goal of the exercise is to see of how elevated of a conciousness can the system produce, in the correct circumstances and over time I reckon that a society in the computer can end being up morally superior to the one of the creators.

[@monkerud2108]

if we stop funding profundity and start funding things that make sense, progress will improve not the opposite. quantum computers make sense, quantum mechanics as a relatively simplistic scheme for predicting physical behavior makes sense. to say either is some radically new thing, or that quantum computers contradicts nature in some deep way, is just admitting to being kind of kooky. sorry, i am sure it is well meant, but it doesn't make any sense.

[@debunkthis]

Joshua Bach talking about something he doesn’t know about

[@monkerud2108]

nooo, nature has done it. quantum computing is a form of analog computing, with physical systems that have mutual information according to the phenomena found in quantum mechanics. nature has to have done much much more complicated such computations. lets say you want to simulate a river, but in a quantum computer, you would need as many qbits as the "particles" involved in a real river, plus error correction, plus the hardware, which nature runs for you. shtap it, it is a cheat to say what a quantum computer can do is something nature can't, that is just some contradiction in terms, that essentially means nature can't contain a working quantum computer. may if we build one it is a new kind of system that hasn't existed before in some sense exactly, but that is also true of the Mona Lisa in the exact same way. stop saying these things they are just wrong headed. profundity is cheap.

[@billymania11]

You're touching on something that I think about from time to time. Which is Nature always acts with minimal effort and maximum efficiency. It's a principle that maybe humans should follow. Regarding computers, analog processing is very efficient and seems to require less energy. True, the answers are not precise to an arbitrary number of decimals but maybe that is unnecessary. Regarding quantum principles being utilized in computers, I have my doubts that this is a worthwhile approach.