Since we’ll soon be discussing cause in the Class, and nowhere is cause as difficult as it is in quantum mechanics, and because somebody recently reminded me of Scott Locklin’s lovely rant against the idea of quantum computing, I thought I’d use the subject as an excuse to explain why quantum computing has stalled.
I expect the words used by QM computing enthusiasts, err -- researchers -- to be similar to when consensus cosmogonists encounter actual data from space probes: "unexpected", "shocked", "puzzling", and "confusing". But, the model will remain unchanged, regardless of the observations. For Quantum Mechanics, something remaining unchanged under observation would be extremely humorous in an ironic vein.
Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" is again recommended reading. He has also produced work on "consciousness", which I'm sure the majority of folks working in this Hard AI realm have never heard of, or are dutifully ignoring.
Yes, I heard Roger Penrose speak at a Science of Consciousness event...Interesting guy, (his brother defeated Tal in the chess Olympiad) but he kind of skirted around some issues...In my opinion, based on many past life regressions, the soul is immortal and can't be tracked biologically through any of its biological lives...But the SOC conference always brings out some interesting science....
As a cognitive scientist since 1987, currently, I believe that "quantum computing" is misrepresented.
Obviously, it cannot work the way it is shown to the masses.
However, if one considers a flexibly multidimensional open system in which the switches also function with multiple recursivity, the idea is, all of a sudden, possible. I described the algorithm in my 2005 (second) dissertation, which I refused to sell or even publicize, because I knew that whoever would own the system, would own the world. Too bad, already in 2012, nanocomputing (and a bit later, light-computing) surpassed traditional "supercomputers" by 12-15 thousand times. Now, these days, it's a self-correcting algorithm, processing live data (happily, still incomplete), and it has been used for "running the world" for years:
I had been pouring buckets of cold water on QC redditards for what felt like ages, but they're all talking about their chatbots now. Funny how these The Science(tm) fads come and go.
Is quantum computing another pie in the sky idea like nuclear fusion? Seems like limited resources would be better spent implementing fission, which we are already pretty good at…
Yes to another 500 fission plants for the US. Clean and Green.
Side note: large scale fusion still remains "just a couple decades off", but small scale proton-boron (HB11 or pB11) and laser plasma fusion systems are showing some promise of more scaleable and more immediate results. Scale on the order of an aneutronic fusion generator that powers a city block and is maybe the size of a two-car garage.
'But anything having size can be divided into parts of smaller size, and these parts can in turn be divided into yet smaller parts, ad infinitum.'
Here is the error in the paradox of parts. There is no reason whatsoever to think that this is true. It is simply the unexamined extension of observed behavior to unobserved behavior. Simply cutting for example an apple with a knife will convince you that it cannot be divided without limit. You may cleverly say that a thinner blade could continue to divide it, and there we see the failure of the model. The minimum possible division is some function of the width of the blade, and of course our observations may only hold true within a certain range of sizes. But nothing at all can be divided at a size equal to or smaller than the size of the smallest blade, whatever that may be.
I expect the words used by QM computing enthusiasts, err -- researchers -- to be similar to when consensus cosmogonists encounter actual data from space probes: "unexpected", "shocked", "puzzling", and "confusing". But, the model will remain unchanged, regardless of the observations. For Quantum Mechanics, something remaining unchanged under observation would be extremely humorous in an ironic vein.
Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" is again recommended reading. He has also produced work on "consciousness", which I'm sure the majority of folks working in this Hard AI realm have never heard of, or are dutifully ignoring.
Yes, I heard Roger Penrose speak at a Science of Consciousness event...Interesting guy, (his brother defeated Tal in the chess Olympiad) but he kind of skirted around some issues...In my opinion, based on many past life regressions, the soul is immortal and can't be tracked biologically through any of its biological lives...But the SOC conference always brings out some interesting science....
Penrose is operating from the Materialist platform, so he’s not going to get close to a final answer until that changes.
Academia is very hard on anyone who isn't a Materialist...though there are quite a few private skeptics about that simplistic approach...
As with theoretical physics, much of what is being claimed is unlikely to ever be achieved, proven, or understood.
As a cognitive scientist since 1987, currently, I believe that "quantum computing" is misrepresented.
Obviously, it cannot work the way it is shown to the masses.
However, if one considers a flexibly multidimensional open system in which the switches also function with multiple recursivity, the idea is, all of a sudden, possible. I described the algorithm in my 2005 (second) dissertation, which I refused to sell or even publicize, because I knew that whoever would own the system, would own the world. Too bad, already in 2012, nanocomputing (and a bit later, light-computing) surpassed traditional "supercomputers" by 12-15 thousand times. Now, these days, it's a self-correcting algorithm, processing live data (happily, still incomplete), and it has been used for "running the world" for years:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/ai-makes-the-world-go-round
I also credited Mr Briggs for the post in my immediate reply:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-red-herring-of-quantum-computing
I had been pouring buckets of cold water on QC redditards for what felt like ages, but they're all talking about their chatbots now. Funny how these The Science(tm) fads come and go.
Is quantum computing another pie in the sky idea like nuclear fusion? Seems like limited resources would be better spent implementing fission, which we are already pretty good at…
Yes to another 500 fission plants for the US. Clean and Green.
Side note: large scale fusion still remains "just a couple decades off", but small scale proton-boron (HB11 or pB11) and laser plasma fusion systems are showing some promise of more scaleable and more immediate results. Scale on the order of an aneutronic fusion generator that powers a city block and is maybe the size of a two-car garage.
Nuclear fission is not as safe as it appears to be. See the peer-reviewed article
for which the link is https://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm. for details. I was the lead author of this article.
Currently, there is no reason for belief in the proposition that nuclear fission reactors are safe to operate.
Terry Oldberg
Board certified nuclear engineer.
Thanks 🙏 but safety is achievable; nuclear fusion so far is not, except in our sun and other massive objects
BiOinSeattle:
What is your reason for belief in the proposition that "safety is achievable?
Terry Oldberg
Board Certified Nuclear Engineer
Plug for an interesting book:
https://www.amazon.com/Sometimes-Peter-J-Floriani/dp/0989969630
In which he shows that quantum computing is a fraud by examining the objective function.
kA contrary view on quantum computing, is presented at Fractal-Computing.com .
I still think “If you understand Quantum Mechanics, you have failed to understand” but I could be wrong or right? Nuts.
I have never understood why quantum computing is in any way profoundly different from analog computing.
Me neither.
"Our waiter was amazed and shared with us the fact that he had done a Ph.D. thesis on the subject of quantum computing."
I was amazed the first time I successfully welded two pieces of steel.
Thank you for giving me the idea of writing a little note about this, in which I am crediting you:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-red-herring-of-quantum-computing
Thanks back.
'But anything having size can be divided into parts of smaller size, and these parts can in turn be divided into yet smaller parts, ad infinitum.'
Here is the error in the paradox of parts. There is no reason whatsoever to think that this is true. It is simply the unexamined extension of observed behavior to unobserved behavior. Simply cutting for example an apple with a knife will convince you that it cannot be divided without limit. You may cleverly say that a thinner blade could continue to divide it, and there we see the failure of the model. The minimum possible division is some function of the width of the blade, and of course our observations may only hold true within a certain range of sizes. But nothing at all can be divided at a size equal to or smaller than the size of the smallest blade, whatever that may be.
Interesting!