The reason that these quantum computers are so difficult to build, if I understand correctly, is because of some sort of “information leakage.” I’ll just get to the point. Do we know whether or not the conscious observer is the reason that this information leakage causes them to fail? Does Schrodinger’s Cat, while I know this is an attempt to say quantum physics is silly, actually have bearing on reality? Most importantly, is it possible to actually answer these questions? I have been under the impression that being observed changes the tendencies of tiny particles, which leads one to believe that it is because someone is consciously observing it. However, we can never know the results of an experiment without a conscious observer (a.k.a. Someone to give us the results). I apologize if this is off-topic.
Do we know whether or not the conscious observer is the reason that this information leakage causes them to fail?
Consciousness is a much higher level of abstraction than quantum physics, so you ought to notice your confusion when asking a question like that.
And no, there is virtually no chance that consciousness is related to measurement, despite what Roger Penrose insinuates. Such ideas are due to the misunderstandings EY is trying to dispel in this sequence.
The reason that these quantum computers are so difficult to build, if I understand correctly, is because of some sort of “information leakage.” I’ll just get to the point. Do we know whether or not the conscious observer is the reason that this information leakage causes them to fail? Does Schrodinger’s Cat, while I know this is an attempt to say quantum physics is silly, actually have bearing on reality? Most importantly, is it possible to actually answer these questions? I have been under the impression that being observed changes the tendencies of tiny particles, which leads one to believe that it is because someone is consciously observing it. However, we can never know the results of an experiment without a conscious observer (a.k.a. Someone to give us the results). I apologize if this is off-topic.
Consciousness is a much higher level of abstraction than quantum physics, so you ought to notice your confusion when asking a question like that.
And no, there is virtually no chance that consciousness is related to measurement, despite what Roger Penrose insinuates. Such ideas are due to the misunderstandings EY is trying to dispel in this sequence.
Do you have a source? Thank you for the reply.
This is a good place to start.