A quantum computer is such an effective means of performing its computations, that it brings into question how it can even be possible that the electronic signals forming the intermediate results can all simultaneously exist and be consumed in the first place.

You doubling down again on comparing these two just proves you don't understand anything about the claims being made.

[–] Blue_Morpho 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dropping a ball is not an effective means of computing a square.

I specifically said it wasn't. But I referenced analog computers which are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball-and-disk_integrator

can all simultaneously exist

Again that's the question of why does QM work the way it does which started 99+ years ago.

you don't understand anything about the claims being made.

Stop with the insults. You aren't even reading.

[–] sabin -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you have an analog computer that simulates a ball falling, you have an analog of a ball.

In this case your analog computer would literally have some kind of ball as part of the apparatus. Thus you would be able to argue that the result is proof of a ball having been dropped and having taken exactly x.seconds to fall.

If you have an analog integrator you literally produce cyclic motions of the constitute frequencies of some signal in order to form the output graph.

What you are doing is trying to use the above statements to argue some statement about quantum computing. Clearly any attempt to do so is complete nonsense.

If anything reconsidering the argument above just lends MORE credence to the idea of a multiverse. Wherever you have an analog computer producing a result the intermediary compontents of the result physically exist. If the same applies for a quantum computer the space in which different permutations of intermediate results must physically exist.

I'm not trying to insult you but you're clearly forcing some nonsense argument just to match the conclusion you've already had in mind before understanding the argument put forward.

Edit: I realized now I confused the "ball and disk" integrator for a similar physical apparatus that was used to compute fourier transforms but the point still stands

[–] Blue_Morpho 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The ball dropping is computing x^2. You setup the ball at the height you need like setting up the voltages of a set of configured transistors. You could measure the output to get the answer like you measure the output of the transistors.

A ball integrator is computing an integral that required so much computation that missile guidance systems used ball integrators instead of digital computers even in the early 1970's.

Computers aren't magic. They are physical machines that require setup to perform a computation and measurement to get the output.

A quantum computer can perform many operations in parallel. That is a feature of QM. Parallel worlds is one of many ideas as to why this is possible. It's not a theory because it has made no testable predictions. It's just as valid as claiming, "Angels did it."

[–] sabin -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A quantum computer can perform many operations in parallel. That is a feature of QM.

You're trivializing the capabilities. This is not something you can just simulate on classic hardware while maintaining the O(n) performance of an actual quantum computer.

The fact that it is probably possible to do this stuff in the first place with a quantum computer is the point.

It's not a theory because it has made no testable predictions. It's just as valid as claiming, "Angels did it."

I don't disagree with this statement as stated but try and have some appreciation for the fact that this sort of reality-bending invention is possible.

It's ok to start speculating.

[–] Blue_Morpho 3 points 1 month ago

This is not something you can just simulate on classic hardware while maintaining the O(n) performance of an actual quantum computer.

You can simulate on a classic computer and it's still faster on a classic computer.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/february/researchers-show-classical-computers-can-keep-up-with--and-surpa.html#:~:text=Quantum%20computing%20has%20been%20hailed,physical%20phenomena%20not%20previously%20possible.

That's why I made the analog computer analogy. Analog computers were faster than digital for a while.

Just like digital computers had the potential to vastly outperform analog, Quantum has the potential to vastly outperform digital.

That quantum has the potential to be faster than digital isn't any proof of parallel worlds. It's the nature of quantum to hold many states which if setup carefully allows parallel computations. Just like it's the nature of a ball rolling on a disc that can allow it, if setup carefully, to perform integration calculations.