Well now you just seem to want to redefine "computer" as a piece of an emergent "computing system", but you've failed to clearly do so. At what part does this distinction occur? Can we include the motherboard? Is your arbitrary definition confined to only the computer's processor? Can we include the processor's BIOS, or are we also excluding any assembly code that is essential to the processor's function? Do we need to go to individual logic gates of the processor to reach your definition of "computer"?

Until you clearly define the physical parts of the commonly held definition of computer that fit your esoteric definition, forgive me for dismissing yours as nonsense.

> support the "QM doesn't describe reality" side of the discussion more than the "QM does describe reality" side, if I can be forgiven for trying to simplify the conflict in that way.

Sure, if you describe "reality" as what humans are capable of perceiving, then it's hard to argue QM applies. If you hold the position that reality isn't simply what we can perceive but what we can empirically measure, then of course QM applies.

My quibble with the parent comment was their assertion that

>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

Emphasis added.

A computer is undeniably a macro structure. A computer manipulating the rules of quantum mechanics must have something to do with our macro "reality", even if it is rather inconsequential at this time.

Well, when I first posted the top comment was inaccurately claiming that the speed of light in the article is wrong. The other top comment was a one sentence dismissal that clearly didn't even read the article, and it has since been removed for this reason.

So yes, I do think my initial assessment was accurate. And no, your comment isn't helpful, simply pointing out an overly dismissive comment is, in fact, overly dismissive, is not in itself being overly dismissive. Some people simply don't want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, or are flat out dishonest, and there's nothing dismissive about pointing that out.

You can't. Everyone has to accept certain axioms to discuss reality, if you accept that reality exists.

And how do these physical, very real, computers have

>nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

?

This is absolutely not true, case in point, quantum computers. They use qubits that exist in superpositional states, instead of binary 0 or 1 bits.

>1. Some type of ego stroking or defense going on ("I have a STEM degree, this person only has a philosophy degree

Did you mean the reverse? Any physics major with quantum mechanics coursework should be well aware of entanglement, it's arguably the most important feature.

I don't come to this sub much but the overly dismissive comments here are really bizarre.

Scientists won a Nobel prize literally just this year for experimentally proving spooky action at a distance.

It's off by .0007% so this article is clearly trash!

What parts of the article did you have problems with? None of it seemed very controversial from our current understanding of physics.