stop using these terms wrong
"b-but muh Occam's Razor"
"b-but muh Second law"
"b-but muh quantum computing"
Qubits are only useful for operations that can be formulated into a probabalistic approach which, turns out, is not that many. They are not "fast" at anything except those few problems,
and have abysmal speed at anything resembling "normal" computing. There are no concievable benefits to adding a whole new dimension to your calculations that you will not / cannot use (which is not far off from reality: any operation inside a quantum
computer can be modeled as a three-dimensional state machine). Often QC programs use mixtures of CB and QB because they really are that bad at stuff that doesn't require them.
other
On scientific realism and instrumentalism
Perhaps while reading this you might think "damn maybe I am wrong. what if gravity isn't real?". Anyone who goes down the rabbit hole
far enough comes to question everything. But, the problem in dispute here is the definition of reality: Can a model pieced together from observational evidence be considered reality?
Even most flat earthers, when pushed, give in to the
idea that "yes, there is a downward force at 9.8m/s" unless they buy the density bs (*cough* why do *cough* things fall in vacuums), But this is not where their doubt lies. It goes deeper, and assumes that if the cause is unknown, that somehow debunks
the mechanics observed. The truth is, that regardless of how you conceptualize it, in it's natural state things will fall. Any model based on observations that can model those observations does reflect reality in some way. It may be slightly
warped, or hell, it may even be upside-down, but reality is in there. Following this line of thinking all the way back around, you could even say observations are all that exists, therefore any model that arises is a product of our own human organization
of cause and effect, therefore making the question of "is it true?" completely irrelevant:
This is the essence of instrumentalism. Any model that can make some sort of a prediction
reflects some part of reality, and thus should be considered as such. Even though some theories may not be appealing, nothing is acommplished by disregarding the model entirely. Starting with full comprehension of existing models from "follow the evidence"
perspective not a biased, emotionally charged adherence to either side is the first step to discovering a reflection of reality that's just a little bit less warped than the last.