• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    Every machine is a plain old Turing machine.

    Even quantum computing is just a shortcut for a subset of hideous obscure proofs. They aren’t doing different math. Special pleading is a fallacy… except when I do it, that’s different.

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • Zarobi@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        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…

        • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          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.