Your define technology as something primarily created for profit. While that's typically true, I can safely vouch that pure maths (so topics like topology, more advanced number theory, combinatorics to some extent) are very much science for the sake of itself. There is a corner with no expectation of an applicable use; it's working far ahead of ahead of anything cryptography, astronomy, fluid dynamics, or anything more mundane use cases. It's not big, and not exactly well funded - but humanity as a whole has figured out that researching a bit of everything is a good precaution in case we ever need that knowledge.
Second, more curious thought. If we assume quantum biocomputers (and I dare say, you're overestimating what quantum provides; it solves multiple longstanding problems but far from all) are closely related to the brain... how permanent and how reliable is the memory of such things? I suspect it's safe to assume they age - or we'd have to deal with a species capable of halting/reversing aging, which will be an impact bigger than the brain machines. It's also, as you noted, safe to assume they're each unique. But then can you trust such computers to arrive at the same answer, in the same method? Can you trust them to keep an accurate record of it for years? And if not... it's a civilisation with tools to answer any question on the spot, but no certainty if they got the truly right answer. Would that lead to important questions being answered by a computer consensus, akin to our scientific theories being proved by consensus of study findings? Would a single quantum biomachine even be capable of all the tasks we can do with our current electronics?
Certainly, I am not discounting that science exists for sciences sake, but there also is a more top-level perspective in play here. Would these things be funded, would the machines needed for the more complex tasks be provided, if there was no profitability potential? Either for governments or businesses? This is probably colored by the hyper-capital lived experience of an American living in the confines of the hegemonic empire but I feel this still held true even during the earliest days of the Enlightenment. It wasn't some peasants coming together to develop ideas and concepts, it was landed gentry. Philosophers of the time period used it as a vehicle for prestige and influence. So, in that respect, I think it is a safe bet to say that technology of a sophisticated sort rests firmly in the realm of "how does this benefit me financially" in this day and age. Theoretical technologies or sciences have the potential to pay off, but it's a very low yield investment and is treated as such, or is actively sabotaged in case it is too disruptive (see: fusion funding vs oil).
I think that it's possible to redefine the way we relate to technology by analyzing the social influences that dictate its creation and use - the internet is another good example I almost used in my post but decided that was a bit too on the nose. It was created with a military purpose in mind, transformed into a data exchange system, and now is a business mechanism. In all three cases, it existed as a means of advancing profitability within the confines of the social systems it was built within. Given the American quote of "America's business is business" and its national obsession over the subject matter, its logical to see the creation of it as being ultimately towards the use of generating profit. Even had it been purely used for communication, it would have eventually been packaged for mandatory use by client states. But that gets into messy geopolitics.
(Perhaps, the thing with quantum is we don't really know what it can fully do yet, but we can extrapolate potentials, which is what I did for a case study in "how would hyper advanced civilization dick over humanity") I think it's important to focus on the word "like" the brain here. It's like the brain in the sense that the brain also uses quantum phenomena, making it a biological quantum computer. That, however, makes -all- brains biological quantum computers. It also does not mean that the brain in question is a product of evolution (in any way we understand it anyways) and is instead the product of intelligences. If you are designing and building a QBC you're most likely going to create it with the greatest computational, calculating, and retention systems you possibly can. Given the human brain has a remarkable degree of storage capacity given its generalized flexibility, a highly specialized organ purpose built to the task should be more than capable of meeting any needs. Especially when you factor it in parallel and with all the other necessary infrastructure to support it in the first place.
I know I used it in a vacuum, but it by virtue of existing predicates a whole slew of technologies. In answer to the aging question, it's interesting. On one hand, the Meta-Sax long ago figured this out, so that's on the table. On the other hand, you don't -have- to stop aging of the QBC. This comes down to social systems and values. If a society understands and relates to its place within the context of its biosphere, it may well accept the transient nature of a thing. A thing has its time, its place, its purpose; then as it ages, its time passes and its purpose is to be replaced. It all depends on the value system and the social systems in play.
As for arriving at the same answers, sure, because you can build it a few ways. The first obvious one is, as you said, consensus based which is the direction I personally chose. It has numerous positive feedback loops that I liked that fit within the greater picture I was slowly developing. The other is to create a synchronous system that uses a blind control, then go with the averages. As time goes on, you can refine the calculations and scope of work to get much more accurate.
If instead neither solution proved viable, and you had a civilization with only -an- answer rather than -the- answer, that could alter the way they go about things significantly. If accuracy is not as important in the moment compared to simply having an answer, it would dramatically alter social development. Time, measurements, accuracy in life; I'd imagine these would be fairly meaningless which has some fun possibilities as a world builder.
As for a QBC being capable of what current machines do; absolutely! A human mind invented everything we created. By virtue of us existing, a society that could create a QBC could engineer specialized or generalized devices to suit any possible task. No different in terms of scale or scope, just in terms of social objectives and adaptability. A QBC for stellar movement, a QBC for planetary motion, a QBC for the wave pattern caused by Lunar orbits. You could have entirely dedicated devices or a pantheon of parallel generalized ones. It'd just depend on what you wanted as a society and what you valued in social systems.
Hope that kinda answers those questions :3 thanks again for commenting!!!
Ahem. Objection!
Your define technology as something primarily created for profit. While that's typically true, I can safely vouch that pure maths (so topics like topology, more advanced number theory, combinatorics to some extent) are very much science for the sake of itself. There is a corner with no expectation of an applicable use; it's working far ahead of ahead of anything cryptography, astronomy, fluid dynamics, or anything more mundane use cases. It's not big, and not exactly well funded - but humanity as a whole has figured out that researching a bit of everything is a good precaution in case we ever need that knowledge.
Second, more curious thought. If we assume quantum biocomputers (and I dare say, you're overestimating what quantum provides; it solves multiple longstanding problems but far from all) are closely related to the brain... how permanent and how reliable is the memory of such things? I suspect it's safe to assume they age - or we'd have to deal with a species capable of halting/reversing aging, which will be an impact bigger than the brain machines. It's also, as you noted, safe to assume they're each unique. But then can you trust such computers to arrive at the same answer, in the same method? Can you trust them to keep an accurate record of it for years? And if not... it's a civilisation with tools to answer any question on the spot, but no certainty if they got the truly right answer. Would that lead to important questions being answered by a computer consensus, akin to our scientific theories being proved by consensus of study findings? Would a single quantum biomachine even be capable of all the tasks we can do with our current electronics?
First, thank you so much for replying ^_^
Certainly, I am not discounting that science exists for sciences sake, but there also is a more top-level perspective in play here. Would these things be funded, would the machines needed for the more complex tasks be provided, if there was no profitability potential? Either for governments or businesses? This is probably colored by the hyper-capital lived experience of an American living in the confines of the hegemonic empire but I feel this still held true even during the earliest days of the Enlightenment. It wasn't some peasants coming together to develop ideas and concepts, it was landed gentry. Philosophers of the time period used it as a vehicle for prestige and influence. So, in that respect, I think it is a safe bet to say that technology of a sophisticated sort rests firmly in the realm of "how does this benefit me financially" in this day and age. Theoretical technologies or sciences have the potential to pay off, but it's a very low yield investment and is treated as such, or is actively sabotaged in case it is too disruptive (see: fusion funding vs oil).
I think that it's possible to redefine the way we relate to technology by analyzing the social influences that dictate its creation and use - the internet is another good example I almost used in my post but decided that was a bit too on the nose. It was created with a military purpose in mind, transformed into a data exchange system, and now is a business mechanism. In all three cases, it existed as a means of advancing profitability within the confines of the social systems it was built within. Given the American quote of "America's business is business" and its national obsession over the subject matter, its logical to see the creation of it as being ultimately towards the use of generating profit. Even had it been purely used for communication, it would have eventually been packaged for mandatory use by client states. But that gets into messy geopolitics.
(Perhaps, the thing with quantum is we don't really know what it can fully do yet, but we can extrapolate potentials, which is what I did for a case study in "how would hyper advanced civilization dick over humanity") I think it's important to focus on the word "like" the brain here. It's like the brain in the sense that the brain also uses quantum phenomena, making it a biological quantum computer. That, however, makes -all- brains biological quantum computers. It also does not mean that the brain in question is a product of evolution (in any way we understand it anyways) and is instead the product of intelligences. If you are designing and building a QBC you're most likely going to create it with the greatest computational, calculating, and retention systems you possibly can. Given the human brain has a remarkable degree of storage capacity given its generalized flexibility, a highly specialized organ purpose built to the task should be more than capable of meeting any needs. Especially when you factor it in parallel and with all the other necessary infrastructure to support it in the first place.
I know I used it in a vacuum, but it by virtue of existing predicates a whole slew of technologies. In answer to the aging question, it's interesting. On one hand, the Meta-Sax long ago figured this out, so that's on the table. On the other hand, you don't -have- to stop aging of the QBC. This comes down to social systems and values. If a society understands and relates to its place within the context of its biosphere, it may well accept the transient nature of a thing. A thing has its time, its place, its purpose; then as it ages, its time passes and its purpose is to be replaced. It all depends on the value system and the social systems in play.
As for arriving at the same answers, sure, because you can build it a few ways. The first obvious one is, as you said, consensus based which is the direction I personally chose. It has numerous positive feedback loops that I liked that fit within the greater picture I was slowly developing. The other is to create a synchronous system that uses a blind control, then go with the averages. As time goes on, you can refine the calculations and scope of work to get much more accurate.
If instead neither solution proved viable, and you had a civilization with only -an- answer rather than -the- answer, that could alter the way they go about things significantly. If accuracy is not as important in the moment compared to simply having an answer, it would dramatically alter social development. Time, measurements, accuracy in life; I'd imagine these would be fairly meaningless which has some fun possibilities as a world builder.
As for a QBC being capable of what current machines do; absolutely! A human mind invented everything we created. By virtue of us existing, a society that could create a QBC could engineer specialized or generalized devices to suit any possible task. No different in terms of scale or scope, just in terms of social objectives and adaptability. A QBC for stellar movement, a QBC for planetary motion, a QBC for the wave pattern caused by Lunar orbits. You could have entirely dedicated devices or a pantheon of parallel generalized ones. It'd just depend on what you wanted as a society and what you valued in social systems.
Hope that kinda answers those questions :3 thanks again for commenting!!!