Thanks for referring to me in the third person but you're making my point for me. Nobody wants to get mired into tedious code unless you're autistic or something. Programming should not engineering. It should be just design and design IS art. It's creativity. The engineering stuff should be taken care of automatically by the design tools. Anytime that "clarity of thought" and high salaries are necessary, it's a sure sign that automation would and will be better. Nobody can stop this kind of progress because the complete elimination of labor costs is one of the main goals of doing business in a capitalist system. Kind of ironic since the elimination of labor would destroy capitalism in the end.

Anyway, I do realize that my thesis is not going to get me a lot of love flowing from software engineers since what I am proposing will make them all obsolete, myself included. But, like it or lump it, this is the future. And it's much closer than you think.

"I hate computer languages because they force me to learn a bunch of shit that are completely irrelevant to what I want to use them for. When I design an application, I just want to build it. I don't want to have to use a complex language to describe my intentions to a compiler. Here is what I want to do: I want to look into my bag of components, pick out the ones that I need and snap them together, and that's it! That's all I want to do." Quoted from Why I Hate All Programming Languages.

Functional languages are worse because they are painfully counterintuitive. I don't want to write a function if all I want to do is link a sensor directly to an effector. Drawing a line from A to B is an order of magnitude simpler. Which is the way it should be.

This will give a new argument against those who object to the possibility of building truly intelligent computers on the basis that they are not living organisms.

The next computer revolution will make the first one pale in comparison. As soon as we find solutions to the parallel programming crisis and the software reliability/productivity crisis, innovation will explode. Current programming languages are primitive relics of the 20th century. What is needed is a new software construction methodology that turns everybody and their uncle into a computer programmer. See Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages.

This is essentially what it comes down to. Does OpenCL make parallel programming of heterogeneous processors easy? The answer is no, of course, and the reason is not hard to understand. Multicore CPUs and GPUs are two incompatible approaches to parallel computing. The former is based on concurrent threads and MIMD (multiple instructions, multiple data) while the latter uses an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) configuration. They are fundamentally different and no single interface will get around that fact. OpenCL (or CUDA) is really two languages in one. Programmers will have to frequently flip their mode of thinking in order to take effective advantage of both technologies and this is the primary reason that heterogeneous processors will be a pain to program. The other is multithreading, which, as we all know, is a royal pain in the arse in its own right.

Obviously what it needed is a new universal parallel software model, one that is supported by a single *homogeneous* processor architecture. Unfortunately for the major players, they have so much money and resources invested in last century's processor technologies that they are stuck in a rut of their own making. They are like the Titanic on a collision course with a monster iceberg. Unless the big players are willing and able to make an about-face in their thinking (can a Titanic turn on a dime?), I am afraid that the solution to the parallel programming crisis will have to come from elsewhere. A true maverick startup will eventually turn up and revolutionize the computer industry. And then there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth among the old guard.

Read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis if you're interested in an alternative approach to parallel computing.

I'll tell you what. As soon as you explain why bodies fall I'll provide an explanation for the double slit experiment.

In the meantime, keep on kissing ass and see if I care. And since I seem to have been drawn into a pissing contest, fuck you too. How about that?

I don't think so. Not yet, anyway. What would truly be a giant step for robots and AI is to build a robot that can learn to crawl like a baby, and then walk, go up and down the stairs, run and eventually drive a cab around New York city.

If your robot can do that, then you're the man and everybody will flock around from distant lands to worship at your feet and kiss your ass.

Sorry, nonlocality does not imply fater than light communication. Those who worry about faster than light travel simply do not understand the science of nonlocality. Nonlocality means nonspatiality, i.e., distance is an illusion. There is no transmission of information between two entangled particles. They are facets of the same coin. Nonspatiality should be a wake-up call to physicists, IMO. The paradigm shifting implications threaten to revolutionize physics. Thomas Kuhn comes to mind.

My entire point is that one does not do science by insisting that we abandon logic. Science is the result of applying logic to our observations and correcting the false assumptions in our models of nature until things make sense. Anything else is voodoo and superstition.

Voodoo science is what quantum computing scientists are doing, IMO. It's really chicken shit, on the face of it. Why? Because they have no understanding of the foundational issues.

(By the way, one does not need Bell's inequality to figure out that space is an illusion. Simple logic tells us that.)

The researchers have it backwards. What we should fear is that powerful intelligent machines will remain under human control. Man is his own worst enemy.

What are you, a wise guy? Bell's inequality is about entangled particles and nonlocality. That has nothing to do with superposition of states. The Copenhagen interpretation has to do with the Schrodinger wave function, which is about superposition. You don't even understand the very theory you're arguing about.

The only reason that quantum mechanics is counterintuitive and hard is that physicists are clueless as to what is really going on. This should be a clue that current interpretations are wrong and should be either revised or abandoned.

This is BS and you know it. Superposition is certainly part of the Copenhagen interpretation. The hard irrefutable truth is that nobody has ever observed superposed states. The only thing that is tested is the probabilistic nature of quantum interactions. The entire concept of a wave function collapse is just silly guess work. One could just as easily say that the property has a given state but the state can instantly change when the particle interacts with another (during observation) in order to obey conservation principles.

The problem with quantum physicists is that they don't have a clue as to why nature is probabilistic and they don't even care to know why. And yet, in spite of this glaring lack of understanding, they feel free to come up with all sorts of cockamamie fairy tales to explain phenomena that they obviously don't understand. Worse, they believe in their own fairy tales. But not everybody is fooled. See you around.

The link you provided questions quantum physics in general.

Not it doesn't. It only questions the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, especially the concept of superposition of quantum states. An interpretation is not a theory. It is just a guess. In this case, it is a very lame guess and silly on the face of it.

Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
Howard Aiken

Aiken was right. I know. I've been traveling that lonely road for a long time. Good luck.

It seems that a week does not go by unless somebody, somewhere, claims yet another major advance in quantum computing. But has anybody noticed that this has been going on for at least a decade and we still don't have a quantum computer that we can put our hands on? It's obvious that some people need a constant flow of money to keep themselves employed. I just wish it weren't the public's money.

Quantum Computing Crackpottery

You may mod me down as a troll but I'm right, goddamnit! Quantum computing is both fraud and crackpottery.