> You are condescending. I certainly did not mean to, and I would blame the limits of this medium for that false impression. I was serious in my comments about

> You are condescending. I certainly did not mean to, and I would blame the limits of this medium for that false impression. I was serious in my comments about thought experiments. > Can I ask what other research do you use as a foundation of your worldview? Aaronson is good at explaining things, so I use him as a reference, but look at any quantum computing textbook and the same argument will be present there. I am not familiar with Alessio Serafini, but there is plenty of other work in the field, from Xanadu Inc. to GKP's to encodings used at the institute where I work. > it doesn't have all the answers. This is always true, but you have given fewer answers. > Can I ask about your stance on say Lie theory as it relates to quantum physics and why exactly is it that Lie theory provides a good foundation reasoning about quantum phenomena? Can we talk about anticommutavity? And infinitesimals? Sure? If you are doing a litmus tests of my knowledge, yes, I do understand those topics and would be happy to discuss them. You can find my email on my profile page. I am sincerely always interested to talk about this with curious people. > 10^300 is infinity. 10^3000 is infinity. 10^300000000 is infinity. This is really missing the point. When things grow exponentially (like compounding errors) the numbers you are quoting are small. > I'm not interested in your arguments about infinity. I legit don't care, stop trying, I find the premise of the question flawed. This is simply intellectually dishonest. How do you expect a discussion to reach the truth if you disregard arguments you dislike? > Are you legitimately saying that current architectures are at the physical limit that reality can take? No, I am just saying that any technique that might be used to improve practical analog computers would be already of use in digital computers. I am also saying that making a better real world analog computer has nothing to do with the theoretical model of Real Computing which is unphysical. It is not a continuous change - the gulf is discrete and qualitative. > Who has actually attempted to build this computer? Analog computers in various media, including light, have been built for a century (more recently with light). Xanadu seems to be trying to commercialize them in the case of quantum continuous variables, and they will probably produce some interesting hardware, but claiming that their (potential) hardware is more powerful than the usual model of quantum computing (also only potential for now) is unscientific. My employer (Yale Quantum Institute) is also employing continuous variable systems in other contexts.