| > The camera is not running the same algorithm as the renderer and so you're comparing different things. [rewriting your words] The experiment used a classical computer to randomly generate a scene C, set that scene up in real life, and recorded the result. Then they repeated this but rendered the scene in the most optimal way a classical computer can. Finally they compared the results to verify that the scene in real life matched the correct classically computed results. The scene + digital camera has the exact same role (and proof value) in my hypothetical experiment as the quantum computer + measurement device does in the Google experiment. It's not the camera that "contains the circuit", it's the scene and the camera together that computes the same values (exactly, as it turns out) as the classically computed rendering algorithm of the same phenomena. Call it "camera computing", write a paper in Nature, win Turing award. The hard part with camera computing is the same: How to map a computation onto the generated scene so that the measurement device (camera) gets a meaningful result faster than it can be simulated in the computer. ---- Look, I've worked on things for a long time only to discover in the end that there's nothing there. It sucks, I get it. Move on, try something else. There's nothing here. |