Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:25:05 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk>
 <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me>
 <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org>
 <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcds4i$3vato$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net M7RhDo6AydBokWnCuAgizwOU/YfjV2y5b3tt2zfN3BAcQZiEhi
Cancel-Lock: sha1:84RbYo+QrB2+Y4YZRmSXDXzPlAk= sha256:q7eM2+6wh+XG+JUnZbhIIA7q/7PYd2/NfOe+Xo+0lsc=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2552

On 2024-09-19 11:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:44:24 +0300, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-09-19 2:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:09:53 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>
>>>> He mentioned that several physics breakthroughs
>>>> are needed for quantum computing to become useful.
>>>
>>> The biggest one would be getting around the fundamental problem that
>>> you can’t get something for nothing.
>>
>> Stupid argument. Look at the effort and tech it takes to make quantum
>> computers... that is not "nothing".
> 
> Is there some ongoing “Nature’s Rentware” involved?


I have no idea what you mean by that.


>>> The promise of an exponential increase in computing power for a linear
>>> increase in the number of processing elements sounds very much like
>>> “something for nothing” under another name, wouldn’t you say?
>>
>> No, it is exploiting the very non-intuitive nature of quantum
>> entanglement to create an exponential number of collective states of a
>> linear number of elements.
> 
> That’s called the “many worlds interpretation” of quantum mechanics, and
> it is philosophical mumbo-jumbo nonsense.


The /fact/ that quantum mechanics describes how the world works, 
entanglement and all, does not depend on the various attempts to 
"interpret" or understand its foundations.