World’s Leading Physicist Says Quantum Computers Are “Tools of Destruction, Not Creation”
I thought this might be a good time for us to get a bit familiar with this new technology; it's promises and it's drawbacks.
Once in a great while I find something of value in these "Futurism" emails I get.
This article on quantum computing is one of those few.
Reading the article and listening to the two short videos I was able to "see" a few things:
Quantum computing won't do much for the average computer user, won't help us writers nor will it help us find information faster...in the video explaining what the Q computer does, it is expressed that these functions might even be slower.
Seems the quantum computer will be best at the very thing we fear...decrypting codes... but also, very complicated and emence computations...this is a good thing.
The real value will be in the spin offs...I see Star Trek medicine written all over this one.
I do have a reservation here though and it ties into my work on the conscious mind, (not the brain).
In the beginning of development of this technology they noticed that the operator had an effect upon the computer, so much so they had to find a way to shield the computer from it's user...But, seeing the probability that the human mind might be engaged with the quantum world also...I just wonder if this shielding prevents the computer from effecting the users mind!?...interesting question I would of loved to ask. I do see that the computer creates it's own quantum and it's own entanglements so maybe it will act as a closed system if that is possible.
I know many are still skeptical, (that's a good thing) that the human mind is engaged or even part of the quantum field so I wonder if the fact that the quantum computer needing to be shielded from it's user is proof of the mind not being in the head but actually a field outside the head and engaged in the quantum field and it's entanglements.
I also wonder if the shear nature of the quantum to change upon observation is in itself protection from decryption of the codes that it has encrypted. (still reminded that what the average computer encrypts will be child's play).
Any thoughts?
Once in a great while I find something of value in these "Futurism" emails I get.
This article on quantum computing is one of those few.
Reading the article and listening to the two short videos I was able to "see" a few things:
Quantum computing won't do much for the average computer user, won't help us writers nor will it help us find information faster...in the video explaining what the Q computer does, it is expressed that these functions might even be slower.
Seems the quantum computer will be best at the very thing we fear...decrypting codes... but also, very complicated and emence computations...this is a good thing.
The real value will be in the spin offs...I see Star Trek medicine written all over this one.
I do have a reservation here though and it ties into my work on the conscious mind, (not the brain).
In the beginning of development of this technology they noticed that the operator had an effect upon the computer, so much so they had to find a way to shield the computer from it's user...But, seeing the probability that the human mind might be engaged with the quantum world also...I just wonder if this shielding prevents the computer from effecting the users mind!?...interesting question I would of loved to ask. I do see that the computer creates it's own quantum and it's own entanglements so maybe it will act as a closed system if that is possible.
I know many are still skeptical, (that's a good thing) that the human mind is engaged or even part of the quantum field so I wonder if the fact that the quantum computer needing to be shielded from it's user is proof of the mind not being in the head but actually a field outside the head and engaged in the quantum field and it's entanglements.
I also wonder if the shear nature of the quantum to change upon observation is in itself protection from decryption of the codes that it has encrypted. (still reminded that what the average computer encrypts will be child's play).
Any thoughts?
Thanks for sharing!
What I am concerned about is the mentality of who may be wielding the technology. There are no requisites, filters, litmus....nothing to help determine exactly what KIND of person is using it for WHAT purpose (and what hidden purpose).
We have a current "lack of principles" operational mode for a large section of humanity. I'm not convinced I want ANYONE near the technology at this time..
A refresher read of Bastiat's "What is Seen and What is Unseen" might be in order. Most are familiar with the "broken window" part but the rest is VERY helpful to solidify the concepts in your being by ingesting the other components.
As you know, O.U.Carl, I have read up on quantum physics quite a bit in the last 30+ years.But from the time of Einstein to the present it seems as if most physicists haven't a solid clue as to whats going on. They look at the quantum world and explore and exploit it, but they do so without truly knowing why they are doing what they are doing even though they are doing it. It's like a guy who walks into a little room and presses a button and is deposited in a different space without knowing he's using an elevator. The only one of the "greats" who seems to freely admit the quantum quandry is Niels Bohr who says we know certain things but where they are and what they are doing is still unsolved. Because of this, math whiz kids come up with unfinished, weird theories, playing on our ignorance, and throwing out any cockamamie idea figuring by calling it "thought experiment" a la Einstein that would give it validity. Unfortunately it still requires proof. As humans, how can we deal with the very basis of the universe without even knowing what consciousness is in any profound sense. Just to be a bit nasty to our beloved compatriots; Objectivism is heavily wrapped around perceiving reality. But quantum leans more heavily toward shadows on the wall than the ability of our senses to tell us the truth.
So, in order to retain sanity, we set up a universe that agrees with our senses being able to perceive it even though everything we know from our sensory input, is an illusion.It is about time that we admit that in order to survive, we deal with a universe that we can work with our limited sensory equipment as we, at the same time, try to understand the underlying "real" universe.
You are, of course, correct...they always jump the gun...blind, to any possible consequences, not having the whole picture up to that point.
Seems they are more interested in quantum jumps instead of quantum consciousness involving the human mind.
Human kind is an impatient lot...which either works out by luck or fails miserably...that's how we have always learned: "Head First"!
You really didn't expect that one now did you?
It is only out of respect for your long and productive history here that I did not vote your post down to 0 as spam. I will give you a chance to defend it...
The article looks at both sides of that equation.
I am just asking for thoughts on the subject. So, you think it's no big deal then...Ok...that's your contribution.
I appreciate that they even discussed the scenario in the first place.
What did surprise me is that this tech, as used in computing, won't be of much value to the average user...but the spin offs, (second vid) look exciting and promising.
Have any thought on that subject?
Note: supposedly a real particle, (antimatter) they've never seen one nor caught one but they did manage to make one...happy nightmares!
Your second thoughts and Lufkin's opinions were more commanding. I agree that the potentials are wonderful to consider. Nanometer and nanosecond sensing offer tremendous opportunities.
I do disagree with the claim that the "average person" will not benefit from quantum computing.
"For all of the prognostication and soothsaying, Kemeny in 1972 vastly underestimated the length, breadth, depth, and flow of the information revolution he would live to see welling up before he passed away too early in 1992 from heart failure." -- "John Kemeny Knew: We Shall Have Computed" here http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Like others of his time, Kemeny expected perhaps five super-sized computers providing for everyone via timesharing. So, too, with quantum: it is a tool of the superstates, Russia and America ... until someone comes along who changes that dynamic.
By comparison, perhaps, the race for battleships, dreadnoughts, and super-dreadnoughts, of 100 years ago did not do much for the average person. I am not even sure that our bridges are better than they would have been otherwise, i.e., that the race for better armor really resulted in novel alloys. But, over all and in the main, it is true that our world is vastly better off for the proliferation of fractional horsepower motors.
Also, by comparison, last weekend at Armadillocon, in the panel discussion on Arthur C. Clarke, one of the "experts" said that petroleum is a runaway technology that will destroy us all with global warming. Perhaps he thought that we should still be burning hardwoods... I did not ask.