D-wave quantum computers are legit.

[dutchiexx]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think the claims made in this thread are exaggerated and quantum computers will perform the same sort of functions as conventional machines, but much faster, because they can process data points many at a time rather that one after the other. Still, new ideas will come up, but essentially, Q-bit systems will operate according to the code commands of their programming and do little more than enable a better gaming experience.

There is a theory that 'consciousness' is the qualia, or the 'what it's like', of information processing. A brain processes heaps (to use a technical term) of data a second giving rise to the perceptions which are consciously, subjectively experienced, so if a computer could process the same vast amount, there's nothing to say it wouldn't produce a qualitative experience in what is thought to be not individual, but universal consciousness. I know that's a really crazy theory, but I'm not sure if it's crazy enough to be true.

not exaggerated at all, if you wont take my word for it then go research them right now, every single thing i have stated is backed by hard scientific evidence that comes strait from the creators mouth....jeeezzzee not to be mean but if you dont know the first thing about the concepts of quantum physics and how quantum computers work then please, go do your own research before you label something as "exaggerated" ...cant possibly make a reliable assumption while speaking of something you know nothing about..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by dutchiexx

not exaggerated at all, if you wont take my word for it then go research them right now, every single thing i have stated is backed by hard scientific evidence that comes strait from the creators mouth....jeeezzzee not to be mean but if you dont know the first thing about the concepts of quantum physics and how quantum computers work then please, go do your own research before you label something as "exaggerated" ...cant possibly make a reliable assumption while speaking of something you know nothing about..

I have lay understanding of QM and a vague idea about quantum computing. I don't know where you do your 'research' but I doubt it's in physics journals. Saying 'exaggerated' was my polite way of describing claims such as, "they will also be able to perfectly simulate anything you can imagine with 100% precision, for example, they could simulate every single particle in the entire universe along with every possible combination of these particles, they can simulate all of this instantly....", for example.

[MARDAV70]

Originally Posted by Gem

I have lay understanding of QM and a vague idea about quantum computing. I don't know where you do your 'research' but I doubt it's in physics journals. Saying 'exaggerated' was my polite way of describing claims such as, "they will also be able to perfectly simulate anything you can imagine with 100% precision, for example, they could simulate every single particle in the entire universe along with every possible combination of these particles, they can simulate all of this instantly....", for example.

Gem, I can't remember who it was, but one of the top physicists (Jim Gates?...Degrasse Tyson?) recently said "If you think you understand physics, you don't understand physics". I have a feeling that as far a physics go we (collectively as a species) ain't nearly as smart as we like to think we are...we're just beginning to taking our first steps.

You know, the ape and panda were thought to be silly rumor and the thought of the reality of such creatures was ridiculous by science...until specimens were presented. When the steam locomotive was invented physicists claimed it's a useless invention because the human body could not tolerate the pressure created by speeds over 35 mph. So, never say never. We've learned saying "it sounds too crazy" isn't scientific at all because we've found that some things that don't make sense (how 'bout that ol' platypus?) are in fact reality.
Does it make sense that a particle is not seen, but the behavior of the particles around it show it DOES exist? Or that a particle didn't exist until it was found? (Maybe these issues have been resolved, if so please inform me...I haven't been keeping up with physics for a couple years.)

Sure, it's great to question a theory...that's part of the scientific process. But at this point with regards to this D wave quantum computer I think it's a bit early to come to conclusions by any of us, especially those of us who aren't involved in the study. Arguing over the validity or folly of it isn't productive...simply, we have to wait and see. I seriously doubt if any legitimate physics journals have "taken a side". It may SEEM they have, but publishing findings is just that, and whatever those findings I'm pretty sure they won't carve them in stone no matter what they are.

Peace, guys.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by MARDAV70

Gem, I can't remember who it was, but one of the top physicists (Jim Gates?...Degrasse Tyson?) recently said "If you think you understand physics, you don't understand physics".

It think was Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand you don't understand quantum mechanics" (but that could be a false quotes because I haven't ever heard of a cited source).

I have a feeling that as far a physics go we (collectively as a species) ain't nearly as smart as we like to think we are...we're just beginning to taking our first steps.

Well we've only really been at Quantum theory a little over a century, though Newton proposed light particles back in the 17th century (he called them 'bodies'). As William Blake said, "The atoms of Democritus and Newton's particles of light, Are sands upon the red sea shore, Where Israel's tents do shine so bright".

You know, the ape and panda were thought to be silly rumor and the thought of the reality of such creatures was ridiculous by science...until specimens were presented. When the steam locomotive was invented physicists claimed it's a useless invention because the human body could not tolerate the pressure created by speeds over 35 mph. So, never say never. We've learned saying "it sounds too crazy" isn't scientific at all because we've found that some things that don't make sense (how 'bout that ol' platypus?) are in fact reality.
Does it make sense that a particle is not seen, but the behavior of the particles around it show it DOES exist? Or that a particle didn't exist until it was found? (Maybe these issues have been resolved, if so please inform me...I haven't been keeping up with physics for a couple years.)

Particles are imagined in different ways, but essentially amount to mathematical functions that no one can tell what they describe. The math still works though.

Sure, it's great to question a theory...that's part of the scientific process. But at this point with regards to this D wave quantum computer I think it's a bit early to come to conclusions by any of us, especially those of us who aren't involved in the study. Arguing over the validity or folly of it isn't productive...simply, we have to wait and see. I seriously doubt if any legitimate physics journals have "taken a side". It may SEEM they have, but publishing findings is just that, and whatever those findings I'm pretty sure they won't carve them in stone no matter what they are.

Peace, guys.

I think the OP is making claims as though they are true, but I'm not. I just have a vague understanding of it and could only speculate, but I'm sure it'll be pretty amazing. I mean mobile phones we like star trek sci fi stuff when I was a young child, and we never imagined googling anything while riding the bus, so I'm assuming the changes in the next few decades will be at least that remarkable, and probably much more.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Mardav70

That may seem I'm getting off topic, but I don't think it is. If you think so, stop and think...we're a product of our own making. If other time lines/realities exist, anything's possible...think what the best of those realities might bring. Think about this world and all it's problems and what could be the best path to take to make it good for everyone. This computer will show us. So, I, too, am anxious to see how this D wave quantum computer unfolds. If it really is true (and from what I've experienced it certainly seems credible to me)...no doubt it's a beginning of understanding the reality of existence. Maybe it could teach us to channel all those time lines/realities into one. I wonder what that would bring?

I think this is the fallacy, and it's a dangerous one. Nothing and no one will solve the core issues of humanity and of our existence aside from us. No magic potion or cutting edge tech. We've lived through decades of cutting edge tech and there's more to come. No fundamental issues have been solved...only more and better solutions which always require OUR political, moral, and social will to implement them. And as we still broadly lack the WILL to help both ourselves and one another, all the tech in the world won't save us and cannot save us, until and unless we muster the will.

Another thing...we may use the quantum computer (soon a PC, LOL) to help us or aid us in solving problems, but unless we can duplicate our own quality of consciousness, we run into a very real issue when dealing with what I call "quasi consciousness" ...and it's one we need to be aware of, as I mention below:

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

it's true consciousness apparently is not tied soley to the physical, even (IMO) individuated, self-aware consciousness. But yet it IS also tied to the physical temple for the duration of any individual lifetime, via the heart and the "divine spark" (acc'd to mystics), which science may one day term the seat of the "consciousness (or spirit) quanta" within each of us which organise and situate our embodied sentience, including our natural or inherent capacity for not only free will but also conscience, morality, and higher emotion.

We may build more sophisticated, self-sustaining machines -- that is, we may (???) build something that superficially appears to be "like human consciousness" soley in its goal to survive and conquer -- what we would term primitive "first chakra" issues on overdrive. But it's not clear if these forms of quasi consciousness could ever bridge the gap to a more fully realised human consciousness without the divine spark. Consciousness may exist elsewhere without free will, conscience, or without higher emotion, etc., but this would be inhuman or not fully human. That is, we would consider it a fundamentally broken or limited consciousness...an enslaved, amoral, &/or psychopathic consciousness...and we would have to consider that it probably would not be fundamentally compatible with our existence.

Empathy, compassion, lovingkindness, discipline, fortitude, and a strong centre in equanimity and mutuality are what are needed and in much greater amounts, to sustain the WILL needed to address the core issues of humanity and of our existence. Much more so TBH than fancy tech, especially quasi conscious tech. Tech is great, but it cannot do the heavy lifting (implementing solutions to core issues) that is fundamentally beyond its score, and that only we can do.

Peace & blessings
7L

[dutchiexx]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Gem, agreed here.


As to the other, I don't think there's a clear parallel myself. For so many reasons. First, our physical perceptions and processing are not solely located in the brain. Equally our heart and in fact all other physical aspects are involved. Sentience and thus (IMO) various levels of consciousness are inherent to all aspects and levels of our physical being, from the mitochondria on up, and not just the biggies like brain and heart.

Also...it's true consciousness apparently is not tied soley to the physical, even (IMO) individuated, self-aware consciousness. But yet it IS also tied to the physical temple for the duration of any individual lifetime, via the heart and the "divine spark" (acc'd to mystics), which science may one day term the seat of the "consciousness (or spirit) quanta" within each of us which organise and situate our embodied sentience, including our natural or inherent capacity for not only free will but also conscience, morality, and higher emotion.

We may build more sophisticated, self-sustaining machines -- that is, we may (???) build something that superficially appears to be "like human consciousness" soley in its goal to survive and conquer -- what we would term primitive "first chakra" issues on overdrive. But it's not clear if these forms of quasi consciousness could ever bridge the gap to a more fully realised human consciousness without the divine spark. Consciousness may exist elsewhere without free will, conscience, or without higher emotion, etc., but this would be inhuman or not fully human. That is, we would consider it a fundamentally broken or limited consciousness...an enslaved, amoral, &/or psychopathic consciousness...and we would have to consider that it probably would not be fundamentally compatible with our existence.

Peace & blessings,
7L

how can you not believe there is no alternate realities and timelines? this fact is not up for debate because science has proved that there is multiple universes, they have hard and solid evidence....research it please and then come back here and tell me what u learned :)

[MARDAV70]

Gem, thanks for correcting my misquote and revealing the probable author...! Also, for your response.

It's fairly obvious that I'm not a physicist...lol. I really had not all that much interest in physics before my NDE. Yet afterwards, I was fascinated by the reality of our existence, and the natural progression of my research lead me to quantum mechanics, which I find fascinating. I find a correlation between what I've read concerning quantum physics and consciousness existing outside the realm of what is perceived as physical reality (which I perceived during my NDE as not reality at all), but that's just my personal experience and summation of it. For me, much of what I've read and understand (and viewed on YouTube) concerning quantum mechanics fits well in my contemplation. Of course, I can't offer any proof of my experience, so it's not evidence for anyone else but me...nor do I intend it to be.

In the last couple years I've not been so curious concerning quantum mechanics, but once in a while something catches my eye. Maybe it's unfair of me to comment on quantum mechanics in my ignorance...but I do have my thoughts and wonder who out there has had similar experiences and might be thinking the same thing. I've found more than I had anticipated.

Peace!

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by dutchiexx

how can you not believe there is no alternate realities and timelines? this fact is not up for debate because science has proved that there is multiple universes, they have hard and solid evidence....research it please and then come back here and tell me what u learned :)

Dutch,
I didn't say anything about alt dimensions and timelines. I do accept these possibilities. I really don't understand how you read those words into a response where I never mentioned them.

I'm speaking of quantum computing, which cannot in itself replace God or our own minds or consciousness. It cannot lead us or point the way, even if it is able to offer superfast solutions. And if it ever "thought" it could, God effing help us, as we'd be well and thoroughly screwed at that point.

Because I'm also speaking of the dangers of trying to create a level of consciousness which is not fully human. We cannot replicate human consciousness...that is known. This apparatus would thus not qualify as having a level of consciousness that parallels a fully realised human consciousness...so, I term this state to be one of quasi consciousness.

Yet if ever it were to become self-aware, a self-sustaining apperatus that possesses intellect without conscience or morality or higher emotion is probably not compatible with our existence as a species. It would have no qualms enslaving or eradicating us en route to maximising its capacities and taking over all means of production, etc.

Basically, what the hell is wrong with us, in that we think a piece of technology, no matter how powerful, will ever resolve the core issues of humanity and existence? We ourselves must do the hard work of getting along, sharing, coordinating, and implementing solutions.

Are we so gutless, so lazy, so selfish, so addicted to the next thrill, and/or so lacking in balls as a species that we'd rather commit a slow suicide, giving over power to a mechanistic all-father, who may then dispose of us at will? As long as there are lots of bells and whistles to distract us as we take the final walk to the annihilation and disposal areas?

Just trying to paint a picture that can compete with the whole fantasy of taking "quantum trips" and tripping through timelines without drugs, LOL.
If you want to move through timelines, work on your soul, make amends, love and forgive. That's where we access the quantum possibilities. Seriously.

And before we even try to birth a quasi-conscious AI bomb and just somehow hope for the best...we'd do better, far, far better simply expanding our own consciousness -- through prayer and works, through meditation and right action.

Peace & blessings
7L

[dutchiexx]

Originally Posted by Gem

I have lay understanding of QM and a vague idea about quantum computing. I don't know where you do your 'research' but I doubt it's in physics journals. Saying 'exaggerated' was my polite way of describing claims such as, "they will also be able to perfectly simulate anything you can imagine with 100% precision, for example, they could simulate every single particle in the entire universe along with every possible combination of these particles, they can simulate all of this instantly....", for example.

i do believe you know anything of such concepts...if you did, then you would know what i speak of is true....i urge you to really go research these concepts on your own..if not then we having to discuss :(

[Gem]

Originally Posted by dutchiexx

i do believe you know anything of such concepts...if you did, then you would know what i speak of is true....i urge you to really go research these concepts on your own..if not then we having to discuss :(

Sorry, but the statement I referred to as exaggeration it's not true, it is at best a wild speculation, and I'm still using the mildest language I can find.

Here's another example of what I mean, "alternate realities and timelines? this fact is not up for debate because science has proved that there is multiple universes,".

Let me elaborate, albeit over simplistically. In quantum mechanics there are weird experimental outcomes about which we make 'interpretations'. The many worlds interpretation was made up by physicists who didn't like the idea of the wave function collapse. They didn't want Schrodinger's cat to be alive and dead at the same time so they said in one world it's alive and in another world it's dead, which directly contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation in which cat is both dead and alive on a single timeline until you open the box (of course Schrodinger's cat is metaphorical). Schrodinger had nothing against cats so long as they were definitively either dead or alive. He didn't like cats that were both at once.


In fact, the many worlds interpretation is less popular than the Copenhagen interpretation, by no means proven, and currently debated among scientists - and in philosophy.