What do you think of quantum computing?

[MattieShoes]

I don't think the human brain is anything like a quantum computer. As far as I know, quantum superposition isn't used at all in the brain. It's just chemical Perhaps more like a neural net with some tremendous optimizations and amazing pattern recognition.

Of course, I'm not knowledgeable in either area.

[Laurens Winkelhagen]

It's called a neuronal net which is a prime candidate for good pattern recognition, and the "optimizations" come from the fact that we have a truely insane amount of neurons:-)

Souls and/or links to other dimensions or other 'magics' have failed to adequately manifest themselves, though I do somehow like the quantum computer suggestion: The possibility that reality can be in two states at the same time (like Schrödingers Cat), is neatly mirrored by many politicians brain^^

edit: on topic:
If quantum computing could be perfected, it would be a major boost voor computer chess, imho. As I understand it (no expert!) part of the deal is that you would be able to do 'information loss-less' operations which would be more energy efficient, allowing for faster computing (due to less heat generated).
The idea that one could analyze multiple possibilities at once is also a nice idea but seems even more difficult..

But first science would have to take the 'decoherence' obstacle, and I'm inclined to follow HGM there (also because I'm not an expert and only wiki-ed 'decoherence' after his post;-)

[MattieShoes]

Are you suggesting the big bang is just a search tree explosion?
Does that make black holes mate scores? and supernovas are pruned nodes?

Hmm, black holes can produce supernovas, maybe you're on to something

[Bill Rogers]

I always thought that the human brain used several different types of data processing that also included analog types of computing. This was not my idea but was proposed years ago by some university professors.
All of this was before neuro nets had ever been discovered or made.
Bill

[Tommy]

Curious about your thoughts
on the above...

I once had a Quantum hard drive and I thought it worked pretty good.

Tom.

[Laurens Winkelhagen]

of course we humans can do symbolic computing, we're just not very good at it(1)

(well, compared to computers that is)


(1) probably because we simulate it in our neuronal nets. Conversely, computers emulate our neuronal nets in their symbolic type of 'thinking'. We call those emulations neural nets (no neurons are involved, hence the distinction). Computers are not very good at it^^

imo (and maybe stating the obvious), this goes a long way to explain why reversi is out-computed, why computers were unbeatable earlier in checkers than in chess and why humans still dominate go.

--Laurens

[diep]

Best laugh I had all day

For clarification though, I'm curious what you mean by "red herring".

Do you think they'll ultimately be completly useless?
Or do you think they'll only prove useful in a small specific subset of problems?

Over the past 20 years the definition of what a quantum computer is has changed. The initial definitions, which is where Harm-Geert speaks about, are total utter nut ideas in order to get the plan funded.

If you'd say: "i can build a computer based upon light which when at same size like todays cpu's, it is 10x faster in the same area, because electrons move at 1/3 of lightspeed vs light is the full speed, so that's 2 dimensional seen 3^2 == about 10 times faster.

No one funds that plan.

If you argue: "i can build a machine that can do 10^50 calculations handsdown", then suddenly 20 years later some ignorants are still speaking about it. Yet i feel the reply from Harm-Geert slammed down that idea quite clearly

Another scientist Dr Eeuwe Sieds Zijlstra (specialized in quantummechanica) and one of the most clever guys i ever encountered in my life, he told me: "to make a computer out of it, you first gotta know how it looks like, please show me a photo from a quantum.

Past few years however, some companies picked up the marketing effect that the word 'quantum computing' caused. Marketing guys are lethal accurate in figuring out that hypes without clear definition on what it is, can get modified into their own gain.

So now a new generation of computers they're building now, they call them quantum computers. So if you google now you'll see IBM and similar manufacturers use this to their advantage. What they speak about is however not something with 10^40+ computing power, yet something that's not far off of the cpu's we got now

Vincent