Scott is being a good sport here and telling the truth about quantum computers. They can't work without MWI! RIGHT!In a later posting, Aaronson says:
Which interpretation of QM you espouse (e.g., MWI, Copenhagen, or Bohm) has no effect—none, zero—on what you should predict about the scalability of quantum computation, because by explicit design, all interpretations make exactly the same predictions for any experiment you can do on any system external to yourself.This is contrary to the opinion of others like David Deutsch, who say that the many-worlds interpretation is what justifies quantum computing.
So Aaronson would presumably deny that he jumped on the many-worlds (MWI) bandwagon in order to justify quantum computing.
This comment gives an example of a very famous and respect theoretical physicist not believing in quantum computing:
As another approach, there’s a somewhat weird book by Gerard ‘t Hooft that you probably know about (warning, 3MB download):'tHooft was one of the main masterminds behind the Standard Model of particle physics, but he also has some funny ideas about super-determinism. So I think he is probably right about large-scale QC being impossible, but I am not endorsing his reasoning.
It explicitly (p. 87) says it’s incompatible with large-scale QC and that if such QC happens then the book’s proposed theory is falsified. So at least it says something concrete :).
It is funny to warn about a 3MB download, as that is the average size of a web page today.