>>11910633I'll explain clearly to you.
how a modern computer works, that is a computer build with silicon chips with a Von Neumann architecture (or any other, doesn't matter), is it physically moves electrons into addresses to store the data corresponding to a human designed pattern that we use in order to perform computations to solve problems. It's no different from an abacus, just using electrons instead of pieces of wood. When we "simulate" a bucket of water extinguishing a fire, all we are ACTUALLY doing is moving these electrons around these addresses in a way that corresponds to how a human being wrote down a mathematical formula that we decided "looks like" how water puts out fire. It has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with how water and fire ACTUALLY EXIST as physical substances in the physical universe with physical wavefunctions and unique materials that are not made up of silicon addresses.
You are making the rudimentary error of thinking that the model is the same thing as the thing itself. It's not and never can be, even in principle. The entire field of Quantum Computation is built around the law of universality. We can't even in principle simulate the behavior of something like penicillin on a classical computer.
I mean, the very fact that you said "wave-functions don't matter for the brain" when all the brain is is a wavefunction shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
The way the human brain physically moves around electrons and photons and other chemicals that are required for it to perform its function can not be replicated on other material in the same way you can not replicate any material with any other material. That's not how it works. The entire field of chemistry is the study of the differences of these materials and how they behave.
What you are doing is assuming that computation is real (it's not) and that you can Turing Completeness is what is required to prove that two systems can simulate each other (it's not).
