livescience.com/google-hits … emacy.html
Is this too good to be true?
It said in the article that it would be for sale someday.
_
[b][i]“The calculation that Google chose to conquer is the quantum equivalent of generating a very long list of random numbers and checking their values a million times over. The result is a solution not particularly useful outside of the world of quantum mechanics, but it has big implications for the processing power of a device.
On paper, it’s easy to show why a quantum computer could outperform traditional computers. Demonstrating the task in the real world is another story. Whereas classical computers can stack millions of operating bits in their processors, quantum computers struggle to scale the number of qubits they can operate with. Entangled qubits become untangled after short periods and are susceptible to noise and errors.
Although this Google achievement is certainly a feat in the world of quantum computing, the field is still in its infancy and practical quantum computers remain far on the horizon, the researchers said.”[/i][/b]
_
So no Hal any time soon, then… an interesting read none-the-less.
The soon is now, perceiving past and future contemporaneously, , one can not go back, but start with an empty slate.
It’s more a matter of feeling , then anything else, MagsJ., on my part.
How do You feel about it?
Indubitably…
Everything can be doubted, including even the idea that one can think, but one thing is fairly certain is that a certain assurance can be had from trusting one’s feelings.
Recall an instance when a feeling grossly misaligned with an initial appraisal about most anything. The closer the core of the personality is appdoached, the more tedious the notion of wether it exists of not.
The movie ‘Closer’ comes to mind, figuratively, and ‘Blowup’ literally.
I don’t think i know that movie… what is the analogy here?
MagsJ says:
“I don’t think i know that movie… what is the analogy here”
To get closer. entails more bits of information , that a camera speed is limited by
the speed of the film, the opening of the aperture of the lens that may limit how close the shot can be taken.
The analogy works for only a certain aesthetic distance
I am a camera , albeit a pointillist, or one shot telephotoically; the middle ground between the background and the foreground is more a matter of setting the object.
Nearer is not always sooner, and farther mot more remote every time.
=D>
I’m actually going to watch that tomorrow… I might have seen it before, but I’ll soon come to realise if I have when I start watching it.