Talk:Quantum computer

Christ, mission creep everywhere.-- Token ConservativeFeminist Thought Police 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the kerfuffle surrounding all of that "quantum consciousness" bullshit and other quantum woo, this article (if expanded) could be useful. I'm willing to do so myself should the masses agree. If not, fine. My edit was solely for the DLP and nothing more. - GrantC (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe some stuff about how people want to link microtubules through quantum computing to consciousness could be added. I've only seen one or two guys argue along those lines, though, and you seem to have a wait-and-see attitude towards Hameroff's research. Not sure if there's any other relevant woo out there about quantum computing. Nullahnung (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no, what you mentioned is basically the extent of it. However, that concept (the brain being a quantum computer) is the meat and bones behind all of the quantum consciousness woo, at least for the "scientific" side of things. My "wait-and-see" approach to Hameroff's work is still tempered by the fact that I'm pretty certain it's bullshit. - GrantC (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess my main issue is that the quantum consciousness article currently lacks any decent reference to this aspect (Hameroff's crap), and I'm a bit concerned that adding such a section (and then refuting it) might balloon the article to too large of a size. I was puzzling over how to make it fit, but I'm not sure if there is such a way. - GrantC (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Revamp
Per the discussion at the Saloon Bar, I would like to rewrite (mostly shorten) and fold this into a section of the quantum consciousness article, since as far as I can tell no other science woo articles make reference to it. As well, since one of the fundamental tenets of "scientific" quantum consciousness is that the brain is a quantum computer, I feel this material is appropriate to briefly mention there (along with a link to more information from an external source). I'll redirect this page to that article as well. If nobody vehemently disagrees, I'll get started on that tonight. - GrantC (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you're going to redirect Quantum Computer to Quantum Consciousness, better make the redirect go to the appropriate section too (assuming you will have a section specifically for Quantum Computing and what it actually is), if redirecting to a section is at all possible... I think it probably is. Nullahnung (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of a wiki noob, but since I don't really know how to do redirects period at the moment, I was going to do some research before doing this anyhow. I'll make sure to do a bit of extra research to figure out how to redirect to a specific section. As you say, I'm sure it's possible, as I could swear I've seen it on WP and other wikis before. - GrantC (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. Penrose's "quantum consciousness" has nothing to do with actual quantum computers, despite what he claims. Penrose is convinced that consciousness must not be computable (i.e. according to him, humans can solve problems that a turing machine cannot) and was looking for ways to somehow make quantum mechanics support this claim. Then, without actually doing any research on quantum computing, he decided that the brain being quantum computer is what he needs for his "theory" to be supported. However, in reality a quantum computer cannot solve any uncomputable problems, so from a computability standpoint a quantum computer is no more powerful than a classical one. It is true that it is more efficient than a classical computer at solving certain problems but that really has nothing to do with Penrose's claims. People have been pointing this out for years and I think Penrose eventually decided that what he really wants is for the brain to somehow make use of quantum gravity effects or some such nonsense (and I guess those quantum gravity effects would conveniently happen to be not computable). So, I really don't think that the real field quantum computing is any way related to Penrose's garbage. Impedance is futile (talk)
 * Yes, they have quite literally nothing to do with each other. Often, special claims about how consciousness is somehow magic is basically an appeal to make humans seem special - and by extension that we'd never create artificial consciousness (see rather silly things like the Chinese Room). So claiming that quantum consciousness and quantum computing were even remotely related would shoot the entire concept in the foot - we would be able to create artificial quantum consciousness, and consciousness would be emergent from natural phenomena and no longer "magic". So, no redirecting. They're separate issues. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you're right; they're in no way related (it's what I research, after all). The only reason the redirect is there is because Penrose and Hameroff's trash is the only place on this wiki where quantum computing is mentioned. I have no qualms about killing the redirect, but the general feeling was that the quantum computing page was wildly off-mission and thus not worth keeping on its own. - GrantC (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)