Many are skeptical about the quantum physics involved in this. Those of us who have systems better than their results wonder why even go that route?
Are you skeptical about quantum computing as a solution in general or more some specific ways that it is not as effective as transistor based computing ?
The problem with quantum computing is that you can never really peek under the
hood to see what is going on because if you did that would interfere with
the quantum process that allows a particle or a qubit to be
both a zero and a one at the same time. I question whether or not for the purpose of cognitive computing if that line of research will lead to the desired end goal that Microsoft and Google/NASA are hoping for.
Their research is based on the assumption that a quantum switch can be on and off at the same time which is based on an incorrect concept of Linear Polarization. One of the main issues faced is instability.
As stated here by a foremost authority on the Bose-Einstein condensate
"The creation and control of a single qubit is inherently difficult, but
controlling many of them simultaneously is even harder. Quantum states
are fundamentally limited for the same reasons that the number of
transistors on a semiconductor board is limited" according to
Christopher Monroe, professor of physics at the University of Maryland’s
Joint Quantum Institute in College Park. "The more of them you have, the
more difficult it is to connect them and the noisier the system.”
Interesting. I was under the impression that there already were working quantum computers in "production environments" (practical use) ?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Many are skeptical about the quantum physics involved in this. Those of us who have systems better than their results wonder why even go that route?
Are you skeptical about quantum computing as a solution in general or more some specific ways that it is not as effective as transistor based computing ?
The problem with quantum computing is that you can never really peek under the
hood to see what is going on because if you did that would interfere with
the quantum process that allows a particle or a qubit to be
both a zero and a one at the same time. I question whether or not for the purpose of cognitive computing if that line of research will lead to the desired end goal that Microsoft and Google/NASA are hoping for.
Their research is based on the assumption that a quantum switch can be on and off at the same time which is based on an incorrect concept of Linear Polarization. One of the main issues faced is instability.
As stated here by a foremost authority on the Bose-Einstein condensate
"The creation and control of a single qubit is inherently difficult, but
controlling many of them simultaneously is even harder. Quantum states
are fundamentally limited for the same reasons that the number of
transistors on a semiconductor board is limited" according to
Christopher Monroe, professor of physics at the University of Maryland’s
Joint Quantum Institute in College Park. "The more of them you have, the
more difficult it is to connect them and the noisier the system.”
Interesting. I was under the impression that there already were working quantum computers in "production environments" (practical use) ?
Not even close. D-Wave will sell you something that they claim is a quantum computer, but it's disputed as to whether it really is, and last I heard, no one has found anything that it is faster at than a classical computer.
,mind boggling to think this all came about by chance carbon/atoms/cells,really makes one wonder about creation itself.
Nothing is by chance.
The universe and life is not random, it was created.
That's just a theory.
There are many theories on the origin of the universe including that it has no origin, it just always was. Not something easily accepted or understood by humans.
There's also a theory that the universe is simply a massive computer simulation.
etc...
There's no definitive answer.
No origin would be possible, but it would be part of chance.
Computer simulation / Matrix is possible too, but it would be under creator / design
Who created the creator then?
And if a creator to create a creator is not needed....then why add another step and say a creator is needed for everything to be here, easier to say it just is, no creator needed?
Quantum computing is a totally different paradigm. There are some algorithms that can be done in polynomial time on a quantum computer, but take exponential time on a classical computer. That's the stuff that people want quantum computers for. Stuff that already runs well on classical computers will stay there.
D-wave's claimed quantum computers have to cool the main functional part to within a small fraction of a degree of absolute zero. I don't know if that sort of extreme cooling apparatus is intrinsic to quantum computing, but don't expect to have a personal version in your house that you play games on.
I remember reading somewhere that humans for example create machines ie computers to be able to store their consciousness in it because the body dies. So that a consciousness could live longer than it can in an organic body. Kind of like a lich in a phylactery.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
what is so special about quantum computers? 3 bits instead of 2?
No, the special is that a quantum bit can be both 0 and 1 at once. If you have multiple quantum bits those can be all the possible combinations of 0 and 1 at once. Eg. 3 bits could be 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110 and 111 all at once.
In most cases this is useless for a computer, but if you're trying to solve a problem that requires you to try multiple possible solutions it's hugely useful: -A normal computer has to try possible solutions one at a time: Is it 000? Is it 001? Is it 010? etc. -Whereas a quantum computer can solve the same with one try, because its 3 quantum bits can be all possible combinations of 0s and 1s at once.
Give it another 40 years - when a single $1200 will be more powerful than all human brains put together
I think 40 years is way too soon for the above to be realized. Rest assured that if/when it ever does, Humans will no longer rule the world. We will become secondary citizens after accepting defeat in the AI revolutionary war of ????.
I don't think that there will be a war.
AI will simply take over - humans will have a choice to integrate into the collective AI mind via some kind of mind uploading or simply die and go extinct if they wish.
There will be some transhuman evolution as humans 1.0 transition to humans 2.0 via genetic and nano modification but ultimately humans as we are today are just a transient state - the final form is AI for sure.
Human brain can never achieve superintelligence without modification - and once AI grows to beyond even modified humans superintelligent brain - even transhuman 2.x will lose their purpose.
AI has a future far beyond our own.
You watch to many movies. Unless we find a new way to build computers. The micro chip is reaching is limits. Heat and power are something thats put a ceiling or our current model of tech.
The micro chip may be reaching its limits, but when it does, there will be something else to take its place that will take technology further. It has always been this way. The micro chip is not the end all be all. There is a whole lot yet to be discovered. And that's an understatement.
That's the key, there are always people slaving over their theories then you get a breakthrough. As long as it doesn't get suppressed or watered down for corporate profits.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
One day genetic manipulation will hit it's stride, then the human condition will be enhanced as people start ordering designer children. Gattaca anyone?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
By conservation of energy, power consumed to do computations is equal to heat output. As thinking hard doesn't make your head noticeably hot, the human brain is actually very low power.
By conservation of energy, power consumed to do computations is equal to heat output. As thinking hard doesn't make your head noticeably hot, the human brain is actually very low power.
Unless it's a type of heat that's not being currently measured. Or maybe an extremely efficient system.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The human brain is an analog computer. As such it can have an almost infinite number of inputs and outputs that work in real time. A digital system like any computer can not even compare. A digital system will never even come close. I don't care how much time or resources you throw at it.
Analog computing devices are fast, digital computing devices are more versatile and accurate.
Analog computers do not suffer from the quantization noise inherent in digital computers.
In general, analog computers are limited by non-ideal effects. An analog signal
is composed of four basic components: DC and AC magnitudes, frequency,
and phase. The real limits of range on these characteristics limit
analog computers. Some of these limits include the operational amplifier
offset, finite gain, and frequency response, noise floor, non-linearities, temperature coefficient, and parasitic effects within semiconductor devices.
The advent of digital computing and its success made analog computers
largely obsolete in 1950s and 1960s, though they remain in use in some
specific applications, like the flight computer in aircraft, and for teaching control systems in universities.
In 1950s to 1970s, digital computers based on first vacuum tubes,
transistors, integrated circuits and then micro-processors became more
economical and precise. This led digital computers to largely replace
analog computers. Even so, some research in analog computation is still
being done. A few universities still use analog computers to teach control system theory
After 1980, purely digital computers progressed more and more rapidly
and were fast enough to compete with analog computers. One key to the
speed of analog computers was their fully parallel computation, but this
was also a limitation. The more equations required for a problem, the
more analog components were needed, even when the problem wasn't time
critical. "Programming" a problem meant interconnecting the analog
operators; even with a removable wiring panel this was not very
versatile.
Many are skeptical about the quantum physics involved in this. Those of us who have systems better than their results wonder why even go that route?
Are you skeptical about quantum computing as a solution in general or more some specific ways that it is not as effective as transistor based computing ?
Assuming that quantum computing works the way people hope it will (which is a huge assumption), it will be massively better than classical computers at some tasks and massively worse at others. Don't think that quantum means "everything is faster". That's not how it works.
So how powerful will they be if you put them in a cloud. All working together, but at different tasks?
The human brain is an analog computer. As such it can have an almost infinite number of inputs and outputs that work in real time. A digital system like any computer can not even compare. A digital system will never even come close. I don't care how much time or resources you throw at it.
Analog computing devices are fast, digital computing devices are more versatile and accurate.
Analog computers do not suffer from the quantization noise inherent in digital computers.
In general, analog computers are limited by non-ideal effects. An analog signal
is composed of four basic components: DC and AC magnitudes, frequency,
and phase. The real limits of range on these characteristics limit
analog computers. Some of these limits include the operational amplifier
offset, finite gain, and frequency response, noise floor, non-linearities, temperature coefficient, and parasitic effects within semiconductor devices.
The advent of digital computing and its success made analog computers
largely obsolete in 1950s and 1960s, though they remain in use in some
specific applications, like the flight computer in aircraft, and for teaching control systems in universities.
In 1950s to 1970s, digital computers based on first vacuum tubes,
transistors, integrated circuits and then micro-processors became more
economical and precise. This led digital computers to largely replace
analog computers. Even so, some research in analog computation is still
being done. A few universities still use analog computers to teach control system theory
After 1980, purely digital computers progressed more and more rapidly
and were fast enough to compete with analog computers. One key to the
speed of analog computers was their fully parallel computation, but this
was also a limitation. The more equations required for a problem, the
more analog components were needed, even when the problem wasn't time
critical. "Programming" a problem meant interconnecting the analog
operators; even with a removable wiring panel this was not very
versatile.
Are you a bot? Every single one of your paragraphs is copied verbatim from a single Wikipedia article, though you've rearranged the order.
Many are skeptical about the quantum physics involved in this. Those of us who have systems better than their results wonder why even go that route?
Are you skeptical about quantum computing as a solution in general or more some specific ways that it is not as effective as transistor based computing ?
Assuming that quantum computing works the way people hope it will (which is a huge assumption), it will be massively better than classical computers at some tasks and massively worse at others. Don't think that quantum means "everything is faster". That's not how it works.
So how powerful will they be if you put them in a cloud. All working together, but at different tasks?
Still limited by number of inputs and outputs. That is the beauty of organic computers.
When you talk about quantum computers, you might as well say "magical computers" that consume no power and represent both 1 and 0 at the same time.
The human brain is an analog computer. As such it can have an almost infinite number of inputs and outputs that work in real time. A digital system like any computer can not even compare. A digital system will never even come close. I don't care how much time or resources you throw at it.
Analog computing devices are fast, digital computing devices are more versatile and accurate.
Analog computers do not suffer from the quantization noise inherent in digital computers.
In general, analog computers are limited by non-ideal effects. An analog signal
is composed of four basic components: DC and AC magnitudes, frequency,
and phase. The real limits of range on these characteristics limit
analog computers. Some of these limits include the operational amplifier
offset, finite gain, and frequency response, noise floor, non-linearities, temperature coefficient, and parasitic effects within semiconductor devices.
The advent of digital computing and its success made analog computers
largely obsolete in 1950s and 1960s, though they remain in use in some
specific applications, like the flight computer in aircraft, and for teaching control systems in universities.
In 1950s to 1970s, digital computers based on first vacuum tubes,
transistors, integrated circuits and then micro-processors became more
economical and precise. This led digital computers to largely replace
analog computers. Even so, some research in analog computation is still
being done. A few universities still use analog computers to teach control system theory
After 1980, purely digital computers progressed more and more rapidly
and were fast enough to compete with analog computers. One key to the
speed of analog computers was their fully parallel computation, but this
was also a limitation. The more equations required for a problem, the
more analog components were needed, even when the problem wasn't time
critical. "Programming" a problem meant interconnecting the analog
operators; even with a removable wiring panel this was not very
versatile.
Are you a bot? Every single one of your paragraphs is copied verbatim from a single Wikipedia article, though you've rearranged the order.
No im not a bot, my whole first paragraph I wrote myself. I am only trying to educate.
BTW Quizzical, I have always admired your posts, and have always respected your opinion on hardware related topics. I have always been curious what you went to school for.
Regarding the original post, you are comparing a digital computer to an analog one. How many people know anything about analog computing? I tried to just grab a few relevant lines pertaining to the post. I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the whole page.
If you believe what DMKano says and are a transhumanist like he is. We will all one day be digital computer super saiyans traveling the universe as gods. lol ya right. We can't even match a rats brain let alone a humans. Likely we never will digitally.
No im not a bot, my whole first paragraph I wrote myself. I am only trying to educate.
BTW Quizzical, I have always admired your posts, and have always respected your opinion on hardware related topics. I have always been curious what you went to school for.
Regarding the original post, you are comparing a digital computer to an analog one. How many people know anything about analog computing? I tried to just grab a few relevant lines pertaining to the post. I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the whole page.
By training, I'm a mathematician. Learning about computers is mostly stuff I did on my own, not studied in school.
I'm satisfied that you're not a bot, though for future reference, if you're going to copy/paste from an article in an online post, it's best to make that clear and link to the original article.
Comments
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I am Phenomenal
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
And if a creator to create a creator is not needed....then why add another step and say a creator is needed for everything to be here, easier to say it just is, no creator needed?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
how about 4 bits?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
D-wave's claimed quantum computers have to cool the main functional part to within a small fraction of a degree of absolute zero. I don't know if that sort of extreme cooling apparatus is intrinsic to quantum computing, but don't expect to have a personal version in your house that you play games on.
Otherwise you're simply arguing there is no explanation for anything.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
In most cases this is useless for a computer, but if you're trying to solve a problem that requires you to try multiple possible solutions it's hugely useful:
-A normal computer has to try possible solutions one at a time: Is it 000? Is it 001? Is it 010? etc.
-Whereas a quantum computer can solve the same with one try, because its 3 quantum bits can be all possible combinations of 0s and 1s at once.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Analog computing devices are fast, digital computing devices are more versatile and accurate.
Analog computers do not suffer from the quantization noise inherent in digital computers.
In general, analog computers are limited by non-ideal effects. An analog signal is composed of four basic components: DC and AC magnitudes, frequency, and phase. The real limits of range on these characteristics limit analog computers. Some of these limits include the operational amplifier offset, finite gain, and frequency response, noise floor, non-linearities, temperature coefficient, and parasitic effects within semiconductor devices.
The advent of digital computing and its success made analog computers largely obsolete in 1950s and 1960s, though they remain in use in some specific applications, like the flight computer in aircraft, and for teaching control systems in universities.
In 1950s to 1970s, digital computers based on first vacuum tubes, transistors, integrated circuits and then micro-processors became more economical and precise. This led digital computers to largely replace analog computers. Even so, some research in analog computation is still being done. A few universities still use analog computers to teach control system theory
After 1980, purely digital computers progressed more and more rapidly and were fast enough to compete with analog computers. One key to the speed of analog computers was their fully parallel computation, but this was also a limitation. The more equations required for a problem, the more analog components were needed, even when the problem wasn't time critical. "Programming" a problem meant interconnecting the analog operators; even with a removable wiring panel this was not very versatile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
When you talk about quantum computers, you might as well say "magical computers" that consume no power and represent both 1 and 0 at the same time.
BTW Quizzical, I have always admired your posts, and have always respected your opinion on hardware related topics. I have always been curious what you went to school for.
Regarding the original post, you are comparing a digital computer to an analog one. How many people know anything about analog computing? I tried to just grab a few relevant lines pertaining to the post. I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the whole page.
If you believe what DMKano says and are a transhumanist like he is. We will all one day be digital computer super saiyans traveling the universe as gods. lol ya right. We can't even match a rats brain let alone a humans. Likely we never will digitally.
I'm satisfied that you're not a bot, though for future reference, if you're going to copy/paste from an article in an online post, it's best to make that clear and link to the original article.