yeah, I think the "quantum computing" (which is a fantastic
  field of research on its own) isn't quite the same as it is in
  your field of research but I think they're more inspired-by your
  research than anything. Personally, I find the
  [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutrit conceptually more
  interesting with creating analogous systems for engineering
  purposes. I've always been a fan of Ternary logic, since I was a
  teenager, learned about binary and thought, "But what about ...
  THREE bits?" and the fascination never left me. == Well, It's
  9:25am where I am and I am just starting my first coffee so
  maybe I wasn't explaining my thinking properly: The use of
  "quantum information" as its use for engineering devices isn't
  using it in the same way. You're using it as approximations of
  probabilities of relationships which do not have any 'real'
  ontological basis in reality per se, whereas when the concepts
  are applied for engineering, the qubit suddenly gains an
  ontological status and becomes a 'something' to manipulate. Air
  vs a sealed can of air for an analogy of the difference between
  the two. == Oh I know I know. I made the mistake of joining
  Philosophy forums a year ago and I learned their weird language.
  == But yes, your interpretation is better: You're the source of
  it. People trying to "lift" ideas from theoretical physics to
  perform other functions such as statistical analysis, building
  computers and such, aren't REALLY using your ideas at all but
  are merely inspired by them. == [by "lift" I mean "steal"] ==

References

  Visible links
  1. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FQutrit&h=wAQGz8neP

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.