[MD] Quantum computing

[Magnus Berg]

David and Case

> dmb says:
> Yes, I have thought it through and in fact I specifically had desktop 
> metaphors in mind. This is the worst of the worst. I'm convinced that 
> computer lingo was mostly invented by autistic dudes who relate to machines 
> a lot more than to people. Silicon Valley desperately needs some English 
> majors.

The worst of the worst? That makes it sound like anyone could come up with a 
better one any day? Do you have one handy?

And computer lingo, just like any other business, is of course filled with lots 
of terms to make the language usable when discussing that business. Not sure why 
you must insult us just for doing what everybody else does.

> dmb says:
> Good point. But there is also a very real sense in which analogies can be 
> right or wrong. We've all encountered them on standardized tests. Metaphors 
> are a little more complicated, but these too can be misleading or helpful, 
> good or bad. In this case, of course, the debate is not just about which 
> image we like best. It about the best way to imagine a complex abstract 
> concept, namely the evolution of everything, of the universe. As you know, 
> I'm saying concentric circles present a picture of the whole with nothing 
> outside while the tree fails because it requires an enviroment in which to 
> grow, suggesting that the universe expands within another universe outside 
> itself. This simply defies the meaning of the word "universe". It suggests 
> there is a pre-existing space in which space exists and that's just goofy. 
> Thus the metaphor just doesn't work.
> 
> Did you notice how Case had to pretend I was making an argument for a 
> staircase or a ladder in order avoid this point? Why? Because staircases and 
> ladders also need a pre-existing enviroment and so the switch inserts the 
> same mistake we find with trees. These are all flawed for the same reason 
> but the concentric circles rightly suggest no such externals.


But concentric circles do suggest that outer levels include all of the inner 
levels, and as Case and Platt discussed with a cell, this isn't true.

...which is why I'm gonna stick to my orthogonal dimensional view. It doesn't 
suggest anything, other than that they are completely orthogonal.

	Magnus