Why Binary Computing will never equal Quantum Computing - Capture Club
kmcowan 3 September, 2018 0

Why Binary Computing will never equal Quantum Computing

I came across an interesting article concerning the (quantum) problem at the core of modern Artificial Intelligence:  Cause and Effect.

Quantum weirdness in ‘chicken or egg’ paradox

The “chicken or egg” paradox was first proposed by philosophers in Ancient Greece to describe the problem of determining cause-and-effect.

Now, a team of physicists from The University of Queensland and the NÉEL Institute has shown that, as far as quantum physics is concerned, the chicken and the egg can both come first.

The nature of All things Quantum is dynamic, not static.

As I was reading through the article, I came across this paragraph:

Dr Jacqui Romero from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems said that in quantum physics, cause-and-effect is not always as straightforward as one event causing another.

“The weirdness of quantum mechanics means that events can happen without a set order,” she said.

And herein lies the proverbial ‘rub’, as it were: binary systems don’t really do “weird,” and most definitely require a set order.  Even functional languages such as JavaScript are confined to this binary order of things.

“Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That’s not my department, says Werner Von Braun.”

— Tom Leher

Consider the common computing terms like ‘Just in Time’ (JIT), First in, First Out (FIFO), and the venerable ‘Garbage in, Garbage out’ (GIGO). There’s a common assumption here that may have been lost due to the nature of binary computing. That assumption is: We know where and when things will be occurring. We know what will be first in, and thus first out. We know where the garbage goes in, and where it will come out. We can know with exact precision when to inject dependencies with JIT injection. These are all quantifiable events because we declare them in such a manner. If ‘a’ equals ‘b’ then do ‘c’, otherwise do ‘d’, in rudimentary terms. It is simply not that way in a quantum world.  In the quantum world, one day ‘a’ equals ‘b’ leads to ‘c’, and the next day it leads to ‘e’.  Further, trying to describe quantum ideals within the constraints of a quantitative system more than likely will diminish the quality of the original, ultimately, then, lessening the accuracy.

So, which did come first?  Neither.

With our Western minds so inextricably wed to building relationships based on Cause and Effect, it is difficult to fathom that the chicken and the egg arrived simultaneously, much like it is to consider Schrödinger’s Cat both alive and dead and the same time, but such is the nature of the quantum worldview.

It is, however, this exact dynamism that a binary system will never be able to reproduce by simple definition.  Binary states are static, quantum states are dynamic, to put it in layman’s terms.  As such, the rule of thumb is that a quantum state can be binary (by choice), but a binary system can never be quantum.

“Sometimes it’s a little better to travel than to arrive”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

As an ultimate raison d’être, quantum processes love to travel, whereas binary processes live only to arrive.  I believe that is an apt analogy.  In a quantum process, it’s really all about problem solving via a cascading path of infinite variation.  This is an illustration of the indefinite causal order discussed (and proven) in the above article, whereas a binary system resolves problems using a determinate causal order.

So when we ask: “Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg,” we ask this from a distinctly binary mindset (a quantum computer emulating binary thought).   The qualitative reality of the answer to this question is the desire for there to be Chickens and Eggs came first.

Abracadabra, I create as I speak.


Leave a Reply