Quantum computing features wave functions, so it’s more similar to human brains than binary is. I have this headcanon SciFi thing like what if the first full scale quantum computer we make accidentally conscious? That would be cool. Though, seeing how badly we fucked up much simpler LLMs implementation maybe not so cool…
Quantum computers are binary. “Wave functions” are functions. A function is a mathematical object, not a physical object. Why is it only in quantum mechanics that people try to reify functions as entities in the world? Quantum computers contain bits and those bits only contain a single bit value at a given time. No one has ever observed a quantum computer to ever contain anything else. Those values just change in a non-classical way. The deviation from classical physics is in the nomology, not the ontology.
I don’t quite think my lawnmower is boolean complete.
And while quantum computing may be expressible algorithmically (dunno, your claim, not mine), that doesn’t mean all of quantum physics is.
Quantum computing features wave functions, so it’s more similar to human brains than binary is. I have this headcanon SciFi thing like what if the first full scale quantum computer we make accidentally conscious? That would be cool. Though, seeing how badly we fucked up much simpler LLMs implementation maybe not so cool…
Quantum computers are binary. “Wave functions” are functions. A function is a mathematical object, not a physical object. Why is it only in quantum mechanics that people try to reify functions as entities in the world? Quantum computers contain bits and those bits only contain a single bit value at a given time. No one has ever observed a quantum computer to ever contain anything else. Those values just change in a non-classical way. The deviation from classical physics is in the nomology, not the ontology.