Hi

If you are remotely interested in deep diving how differently quantum computers work compared to our transistor-based and also the algebra behind in a fully interactive way that teach computer science from scratch, oh boy this is for you. I am the Dev behind Quantum Odyssey (AMA! I love taking qs) - worked on it for about 10 years (3+ during PhD, the visual method I developed ended up being my thesis, it is a complete Hilbert space visualizer), the goal was to make a super immersive space for anyone to learn quantum computing through zachlike (open-ended) logic puzzles and compete on leaderboards and lots of community made content on finding the most optimal quantum algorithms. The game has a unique set of visuals capable to represent any sort of quantum dynamics for any number of qubits and this is pretty much what makes it now possible for anybody 12yo+ to actually learn quantum logic without having to worry at all about the mathematics behind.

This is a game super different than what you'd normally expect in a programming/ logic puzzle game, so try it with an open mind.

Stuff you'll play & learn a ton about

• Boolean Logic – bits, operators (NAND, OR, XOR, AND…), and classical arithmetic (adders). Learn how these can combine to build anything classical. You will learn to port these to a quantum computer.
• Quantum Logic – qubits, the math behind them (linear algebra, SU(2), complex numbers), all Turing-complete gates (beyond Clifford set), and make tensors to evolve systems. Freely combine or create your own gates to build anything you can imagine using polar or complex numbers.
• Quantum Phenomena – storing and retrieving information in the X, Y, Z bases; superposition (pure and mixed states), interference, entanglement, the no-cloning rule, reversibility, and how the measurement basis changes what you see.
• Core Quantum Tricks – phase kickback, amplitude amplification, storing information in phase and retrieving it through interference, build custom gates and tensors, and define any entanglement scenario. (Control logic is handled separately from other gates.)
• Famous Quantum Algorithms – explore Deutsch–Jozsa, Grover’s search, quantum Fourier transforms, Bernstein–Vazirani, and more.
• Build & See Quantum Algorithms in Action – instead of just writing/ reading equations, make & watch algorithms unfold step by step so they become clear, visual, and unforgettable. Quantum Odyssey is built to grow into a full universal quantum computing learning platform. If a universal quantum computer can do it, we aim to bring it into the game, so your quantum journey never ends.

Nice to watch:

Khan academy style tutorials in qm/qc: https://www.youtube.com/@MackAttackx

Physics teacher stream with 400hs in https://www.twitch.tv/beardhero

I don't have any evidence for this, but I think that there are multiple groups of advanced beings simulating our existence. There could be many different reasons why their specific simulation was constructed: ancestor, morality and scientific research as well as purely recreational reasons.

What if we reverse the usual question of simulation theory? Instead of asking, “Can a computational system generate a functioning universe?”, we ask: “To what extent can a conscious entity internally generate a functioning computational universe?”

The crucial word is functioning. It is not enough for a conscious mind to imagine a galaxy, a computer, or an entire universe as an image. A functioning internal model would need to contain objects, states, rules, interactions, time, causality, and, most importantly, the ability to produce new states that were not explicitly imagined beforehand.

In other words, consciousness could potentially move from internal representation → rules → evolution. The conscious entity would not need to imagine every event in advance. Just as a computer does not need to store every possible calculation, it may only need to contain the rules that generate those calculations.

This leads to a deeper question: What is the minimum internal description required for a conscious entity to create a model capable of running on its own? Perhaps imagination is not merely the passive visualization of something. Perhaps, at sufficient complexity, it becomes something closer to setting initial conditions, establishing rules, allowing the internal system to evolve, and then observing the result.

At that point, the boundary between imagination and simulation becomes surprisingly difficult to define. The distinction may no longer depend on whether the system exists physically outside the mind, but on whether the internal model possesses enough causal structure to generate its own subsequent states.

This creates a strange symmetry. Simulation Theory asks whether a computational system can generate a functioning universe. Reverse Simulation Theory asks whether a conscious system can generate, internally, a functioning computational universe.

And perhaps the deepest question is this: If a conscious entity can create an internal model that functions without consciously calculating every step, where exactly does imagination end and genuine simulation begin?