Premature regulation of quantum computing stifles innovation; governments should adopt flexible, targeted governance, support international cooperation, and voluntary standards instead.
It is fascinating to see how early we are in the journey toward practical quantum computers and how much of this work depends on cross‑border collaboration. Most of the devices you hear about in the news are prototypes used by researchers exploring fundamental physics, and they draw on a truly global supply chain: cryogenic systems from Europe, lasers from Japan, software from the United States. Because of this interdependence, sweeping regulations, like classifying quantum devices as strategic assets and requiring licences for every transaction, could end up harming the very people who are driving innovation. It is worth remembering that some of the most celebrated scientific breakthroughs happened because scientists had the freedom to share ideas and components freely across borders. The lesson here is that protecting national interests and supporting budding technologies is not about building walls around laboratories; it is about nurturing the networks that sustain them and giving researchers room to experiment.
The sciences neither interpret nor give meaning. They make models and mathematical constructs, that describe in a limited way observed phenomena.
The sciences are among our most astonishing accomplishments that give us great powers. But the sciences are silent on the meaning of things. Assigning meaning to scientific observations is outside the scope of science. Meaning belongs to the realm of philosophy.
As theoretical physics investigate topics remote from normal human experience, those things can become quite abstract and dependent upon mathematical modelling that can humble the most of us.
Even the greatest of minds struggle with mathematics and philosophy, because both require a prolonged focus on abstract thought.
It is fascinating to see how early we are in the journey toward practical quantum computers and how much of this work depends on cross‑border collaboration. Most of the devices you hear about in the news are prototypes used by researchers exploring fundamental physics, and they draw on a truly global supply chain: cryogenic systems from Europe, lasers from Japan, software from the United States. Because of this interdependence, sweeping regulations, like classifying quantum devices as strategic assets and requiring licences for every transaction, could end up harming the very people who are driving innovation. It is worth remembering that some of the most celebrated scientific breakthroughs happened because scientists had the freedom to share ideas and components freely across borders. The lesson here is that protecting national interests and supporting budding technologies is not about building walls around laboratories; it is about nurturing the networks that sustain them and giving researchers room to experiment.
Absolutely!
The sciences neither interpret nor give meaning. They make models and mathematical constructs, that describe in a limited way observed phenomena.
The sciences are among our most astonishing accomplishments that give us great powers. But the sciences are silent on the meaning of things. Assigning meaning to scientific observations is outside the scope of science. Meaning belongs to the realm of philosophy.
As theoretical physics investigate topics remote from normal human experience, those things can become quite abstract and dependent upon mathematical modelling that can humble the most of us.
Even the greatest of minds struggle with mathematics and philosophy, because both require a prolonged focus on abstract thought.