>>11266863Quantum computing research isn't garbage. There are a set of compelling reasons and papers that suggest that we have a direction to go towards understanding quantum computation and building a quantum computer, and there are concerns and open questions about its feasibility - this is normal and healthy for any nontrivial part of math, science, and technology.
>because quantum mechanics is a bunch of garbage nonsensenot really. There are succinct ways to predict the results of experiments, which tells us the theory isn't garbage, but all the popsci explanations tell you that it's not a theory that lends itself to conventional explanation. The short of it is that you shouldn't think too hard about the ontology until you have more experience with phenomena from other fields, and you should understand that quantum mechanics gives you a set of tools that let you predict the interactions of 'quantities' after 'experiments.' As long as you can accept that, quantum does exactly what it was made to do - the only problem is that it isn't clear about its ontology, and you should reserve judgement until you read more physics.
I'm almost tempted to say you think it's garbage because nobody outside of the actual big writers in quantum computing can explain it without saying "le parallization, le more states" which is *not* what makes quantum fundamentally different when talking about computation. Say what you will about Aaronson, but when he says that superposition in computing is a phenomenon that doesn't have classical analogue to "and, or" relations, and that all the quantum 'magic' is a mathematical consequence of complex probability amplitudes over strictly nonnegative probabilities, he was right.
