[gf000]

Who says it is a subset of computer science?

But computational models are possibly the most universal thing there is, they are beneath even mathematics, and physical matter is no exception. There is simply no stronger computational model than a Turing machine, period. Just because you make it out of neurons or silicon is irrelevant from this aspect.

[goatlover]

Turing machines aren't quantum mechanical, and computation is based on logic. This discussion is philosophical, so I guess it's philosophy all the way down.

[WarmWash]

Quantum computers don't provide access to novel problems, they provide access to novel solutions.

You can use a classic transistor turing machine to solve quantum problems, it's just gonna take way longer.

[goatlover]

Turing machines are deterministic. Quantum Mechanics is not, unless you go with a deterministic interpretation, like Many Worlds. But even then, you won't be able to compute all the branches of the universal wave equation. My guess is any deterministic interpretation of QM will have a computational bullet to bite.

As such, it doesn't look like reality can be fully simulated by a Turing machine.

[WarmWash]

Quantum mechanics and quantum computers are not interchangeable terms.

[rolph]

QM is a derived rule set, QC is a result of assembling a physical system that exploits QM rules.

aside from that, a Quantum scale assemblage [QC] is a lot closer to biological secret sauce than semiconductor gates.

[rolph]

brains provide access to novel problems, and novel solutions.

the process is called imagination.

[mikkupikku]

Giving a Turing machine access to a quantum RNG oracle is a trivial extension that doesn't meaningfully change anything. If quantum woo is necessary to make consciousness work (there is no empirical evidence for this, BTW), such can be built into computers.