That's a funny cartoon, and _very_ fitting to the discussion. I'm a physicist and its true phsycist's don't always tell the whole truth when talking about quan

That's a funny cartoon, and _very_ fitting to the discussion. I'm a physicist and its true phsycist's don't always tell the whole truth when talking about quantum mechanics. I understand the different perspective between a person doing quantum computing and physicist thinking about the real world. In a quantum computer there are maybe 32 objects each with 2 states. In the real world something like an electric field has an infinite number of possibly values for each of an inifinte numbers of points in space. And then there are interactions between different objects which we can't hope to mathematcially solve but only approximate. And, on top of that, we have to relate the mathematcis to what people see around us. So generally we have to create a straw man for a specific scenario, hence the line in the comic where phsycists don't tell the whole truth. And that's why all these people can look at the straw man example I gave and then say "No, that's not right. It's not "OR". So, you can say a particle is in two places (AND) at the same time wihtin a given context. So that is fair. In the context of describing the connection of a field to its originating particle, that strawman is not useful. The elctric field is correclated with the position of the particle so the "OR" idea is helpful there, but if you try to take that example too far, sooner or later that strawman breaks down. So you could look at the statement in the comic instead about wave functions. Does that provide an clarity to how a field relates to the particle from which it originates? Probably not unless you already know the answer. Admitedly, I guess what I wrote didn't provide much clarity either. Any disucssion of quantum mechanics in a place like this usually devolves into everyone talking past each other.