4 ms·

The coolness of quantum computing is that it harnesses the natural computational abilities of reality itself. So a single atom is doing an amazing number of qu

The coolness of quantum computing is that it harnesses the natural computational abilities of reality itself. So a single atom is doing an amazing number of quantum calculations at any moment. These guys like Deutsch figured out how to harness those calculations. And the only way to interact with parallel universes is if they are totally identical except what's inside of the quantum computer itself. Deutsch posits that the quantum computer essentially proves many-worlds.

adrianN 9y ago
All computing machines harness the universe's innate ability for computation. Quantum computers just do it better.
ethn 9y ago
You didn't defend Deutsch's erroneous assumption that atoms are responsible for physical interactions in computation. Even in quantum computing atoms are not responsible for any computation––especially if you have a system like DWave which uses magnetically induced currents. "The natural computational abilities of reality itself" Additionally you continue to insist that computation is a real physical thing. Are you claiming that nature is aware of the states we assign it to perform computation? The way computation works is that we map various physical states with our own semantic abstractions. I can change the computation for addition into one for subtraction without any physical change to the system. So there is no harnessing of "the natural computational abilities of reality itself". We merely observe natural behavior and semantically map it (which is what engineering is).
- ridewinter 9y ago
  Take the interference pattern built in the famous double slit experiment: what Deutsch and other recognized is that there's computation happening to create that pattern. And similar computation is present in all quantum effects. Quantum computers in effect harness that natural computational power. I don't fully understand how, but Deutsch proved that you can create a general computing machine from those natural quantum computations. Amazing.
  - ethn 9y ago
    You continue to ignore the weak points of Deutsch's argument that I've pointed out. You can create a computing machine by assigning physical states to any physical behavior, quantum, classical, hamiltonian, etc. The proof is trivial and it is not a proof he came up with. It further follows, there is no computation happening during the creation of an interference pattern until we assign it our own abstract semantic states. This quantum woo is helping neither science nor quantum physics; in fact you are hindering it. Ascribing causal responsibility to non-observable (explicitly unknowable)† entities used to be criticized as dogmatic dribble, now it's embraced as popular science meant only to provoke reaction. Science is about establishing useful models of the world to make physical predictions. † See common fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
    - ridewinter 9y ago
      Many-worlds has a concrete, physical, simple explanation for quantum effects. The other interpretations are based in the abstract, and are incredibly difficult to understand. That's all I'm saying.
      - ethn 9y ago
        "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is." -Niels Bohr All of science is abstract, not even "force" describes something physical. There are many more concrete models like Bohmian that don't rely on unprovable conjecture.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        > Many-worlds has a concrete, physical, simple explanation for quantum effects. So does religion, it doesn't make it true without evidence. Inventing unseen universes is easy, it's not simple, it fails the Occam's razor test for the same reason gods do.

adrianN 9y ago

All computing machines harness the universe's innate ability for computation. Quantum computers just do it better.

ethn 9y ago

You didn't defend Deutsch's erroneous assumption that atoms are responsible for physical interactions in computation. Even in quantum computing atoms are not responsible for any computation––especially if you have a system like DWave which uses magnetically induced currents. "The natural computational abilities of reality itself" Additionally you continue to insist that computation is a real physical thing. Are you claiming that nature is aware of the states we assign it to perform computation? The way computation works is that we map various physical states with our own semantic abstractions. I can change the computation for addition into one for subtraction without any physical change to the system. So there is no harnessing of "the natural computational abilities of reality itself". We merely observe natural behavior and semantically map it (which is what engineering is).

ridewinter 9y ago
Take the interference pattern built in the famous double slit experiment: what Deutsch and other recognized is that there's computation happening to create that pattern. And similar computation is present in all quantum effects. Quantum computers in effect harness that natural computational power. I don't fully understand how, but Deutsch proved that you can create a general computing machine from those natural quantum computations. Amazing.
- ethn 9y ago
  You continue to ignore the weak points of Deutsch's argument that I've pointed out. You can create a computing machine by assigning physical states to any physical behavior, quantum, classical, hamiltonian, etc. The proof is trivial and it is not a proof he came up with. It further follows, there is no computation happening during the creation of an interference pattern until we assign it our own abstract semantic states. This quantum woo is helping neither science nor quantum physics; in fact you are hindering it. Ascribing causal responsibility to non-observable (explicitly unknowable)† entities used to be criticized as dogmatic dribble, now it's embraced as popular science meant only to provoke reaction. Science is about establishing useful models of the world to make physical predictions. † See common fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
  - ridewinter 9y ago
    Many-worlds has a concrete, physical, simple explanation for quantum effects. The other interpretations are based in the abstract, and are incredibly difficult to understand. That's all I'm saying.
    - ethn 9y ago
      "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is." -Niels Bohr All of science is abstract, not even "force" describes something physical. There are many more concrete models like Bohmian that don't rely on unprovable conjecture.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      > Many-worlds has a concrete, physical, simple explanation for quantum effects. So does religion, it doesn't make it true without evidence. Inventing unseen universes is easy, it's not simple, it fails the Occam's razor test for the same reason gods do.