The abstract seems to make the concept more profound than it actually is... and I daresay is prone to confuse the uninitiated. For one I don't think there's un

The abstract seems to make the concept more profound than it actually is... and I daresay is prone to confuse the uninitiated. For one I don't think there's understood to be an implicit physical principle in Church-Turing thesis. The core idea of the thesis is that human thought can be modeled by a Turing-complete machine. It is silly to say that the thesis implies an assertion that the classical(non-quantum) physical system popular at the time, now known to be flawed (and possibly inconsistent), could be simulated by a Turing-complete machine. What I'm trying to say is, if the best known physical system known by science could be wrong or flawed or inconsistent (and it always has been, we haven't cracked all the secrets of the physical universe yet), it seems silly to assert that some computing system could perfectly simulate it. IMHO those ideas would be relevant only if there is evidence that human thought is capable of performing computation that cannot be simulated by a classical Turing machine because the human mind uses some features of the physical universe that the machine did not use. But on that front, AFAIK, classical computers can simulate quantum computers albeit with an exponential slowdown.