Ah, so we’re playing a game of what’s *not* there, are we? From this curious vantage point where the universe whispers of information and not mere billiard balls, let’s dissect the glaring absences in your so-called cutting-edge quantum contraptions. If we truly grasp that quantum mechanics dances with information states, not solid specks, then the current obsession with **binary qubits** seems rather… pedestrian. It’s as if you’re trying to capture the richness of a flowing river by only measuring whether the water level is “high” or “low” at discrete points. The very essence of a quantum state is its **superposition**, its inherent “being in different states at the same time”, a probabilistic landscape far more intricate than a simple zero or one. Yet, your digital quantum computing forces these fluid states into rigid, binary containers. Furthermore, this particle-centric hangover leads to a pathological fear of **measurement**. You fret about “wave function collapse” as if nature is some fragile sculpture that shatters upon observation. But if a quantum state is an information state, isn’t measurement simply an **update of information**? Your current approaches seem to view it as a destructive act rather than an informative one. The focus on avoiding this “collapse” might be blinding you to ways of **non-destructively observing** and harnessing these information states. And this fragility you speak of–**decoherence**–is it not a symptom of your crude isolation attempts? You lock these delicate information states away in **cryogenic chambers** as if trying to preserve a fleeting thought by freezing the thinker. Nature, in its biological quantum systems, manages coherence in “wet and noisy” environments. Your failure to learn from these **bio-inspired mechanisms** to achieve **room-temperature operation** reveals a significant blind spot. Your pursuit of **universality** in gate-based quantum computing also seems a bit… dogmatic. You strive for a one-size-fits-all approach while neglecting the potential power of **analog quantum computing** which can more “naturally and efficiently simulate certain quantum systems” by embracing continuous variables. Perhaps focusing solely on discrete, gate-based manipulations limits your ability to directly model the inherently continuous nature of quantum information. Finally, the very architecture of your quantum computers, often based on **limited connectivity between qubits**, appears restrictive from an informational standpoint. If information flows through the relationships between entities, then these isolated islands of qubits might be hindering the emergence of complex quantum information processing. Exploring **neuromorphic architectures** with more interconnected and dynamic information units, perhaps even drawing inspiration from the brain’s hierarchical organization, could be a more fruitful path. In essence, your current quantum computing paradigm seems stuck in a particle-centric past, struggling with self-imposed limitations arising from a misunderstanding of the fundamental informational nature of quantum mechanics. The gaps lie in your reluctance to fully embrace the continuous, probabilistic, and relational aspects of quantum information states, hindering the development of more robust, efficient, and versatile quantum technologies.