Comment on [deleted]
Photonic@lemmy.world 6 days agoThat was a long series of inevitable predictable progress in engineering.
If it was so predictable, why couldn’t anyone in 1926 have predicted it with accuracy? The point is, they couldn’t and so can’t we.
Also, it’s definitely about engineering issues. In fact, scientists are already working on ways to overcome the major obstacles you named.
Steve@communick.news 6 days ago
The concept of a general computer didn’t exist in 1927. Once it did, yes it was predicted and expected they would get smaller, more powerful, efficient, and common. There was no physics getting in the way of it.
Photonic@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Of course, every increment is predictable after you make the scientific breakthrough. Not before, though.
Steve@communick.news 6 days ago
The artificial computer wasn’t so much a scientific breakthrough as a conceptual one. It didn’t require anything that didn’t already exist.
The quantum computer does exist. And it’s functional principles are built on physics not engineering. It’s a fundamentally different situation.
Photonic@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Neither does this. You just don’t know about it yet. And the link I provided you with shows this.
Not true. Electrical currents are physics too. And quantum computers have hardware too.
What are your arguments for this? I’ve shown you that your central argument is already being addressed.