Science

@jazzjfes posted a full link so we're good. I was able to look further down the article, and I think there's some meat there to the QC stuff that is independent of the framing that starts at the beginning of the article.

It’s not about conscious experience, but from quantum interaction

The problem is that the article repeatedly flies very very close to the sun with all kinds of phrasing implying "perspectives" of individuals (e.g. consciousness).

In physics, as in life, it is important to view things from more than one perspective

lengths of space and durations of time vary depending on who is looking.

It seemed to show that by measuring things, we play a part in determining their properties

A century later, many physicists question whether a single objective reality, shared by all observers, exists at all.

For the first time, we can jump from one quantum perspective to another.

At a bare minimum it's definitely equivocating between "perspective" in the sense of human perspective and perspective in the sense of frames of reference as it pertains to physics. And the article title is "do we create space-time"? Why even bother using open-ended phrasing that flirts with that possibility in the first place? We have so much misinformation that comes from people playing with meaning about the relation between quantum and conscious things that using paraphys upon paragraphs of phrasing that veers into and then out of that implication conveys the same impression as stating it outright.

Things like this are often hyped by the mass media pop-science outlets, when they're usually just lab experiments that aren't really gonna happen forever. I've been reading about Quantum Computers in Popular Science since like the early 2000s.