3 ms·
I didn't say I favored the MWI. My point is simply that the question of where computation took place shouldn't be dismissed. Like I said, I would be more inclin
by fluoridation 2y ago
I didn't say I favored the MWI. My point is simply that the question of where computation took place shouldn't be dismissed. Like I said, I would be more inclined to think someone is not counting properly. As a simple example, a parallel program may run in half the time, but that doesn't mean it executed half as many operations.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the question of where computation took place shouldn't be dismissed Sure. But it also shouldn’t be glorified as adding anything to an old debate—every QCD calculation has this dynamic of lots of classical “computations” happening seemingly simultaneously.
- adastra22 2y agoThere isn’t hidden computation going on though.
- fluoridation 2y agoComputation isn't hidden in a parallel program, either. But if you only count the running time, and not the total instructions retired or the computer's energy usage, you're not getting the full picture.
- adastra22 2y agoAnd there isn’t parallel computation going on either. I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how quantum compute works here. There is no merge-reduce as another commenter is claiming. Even in MWI, the decoherence is one-way.