This is a common misconception which Peter Zeihan probably heard from Dr. Michio Kaku. The catch here is that the only way to extract information from a qubit is by measuring it, which gives you only one bit of information (0 or 1).

Here is @MichioKaku making the same misguided argument:

By the same logic any physical system with a continuous degree of freedom can store infinite amount of information. Imagine producing a stick of length equal to 1.010110... = [the entire content of Wikipedia in binary]. Except we cannot produce (or measure) sticks so accurately.

An even closer analogy is to imagine a coin whose probability of heads is precisely 0.1010110... = [all of Wikipedia in binary], and say that by flipping it once we can read out the whole Wikipedia. Except that what we actually see is either heads or tails and nothing else.

@PeterZeihan @michiokaku Interestingly, few people would make the same mistake for classical probabilistic preparations, which can take “infinitely many values”, described by a straight line segment.

@skdh @PeterZeihan @michiokaku With that assertion he has killed ALL Schrödinger’s cats across the multiverse!

@PeterZeihan @michiokaku Good one

@PeterZeihan @michiokaku That dude is 100 percent engagement bait.

@PeterZeihan @michiokaku How does one incorporate quantum entanglement into Microsoft Word ?

@skdh @PeterZeihan @michiokaku "Potential information" is not a thing.

@skdh @PeterZeihan @michiokaku “A single qubit can *theoretically hold more data than the largest supercomputer.”. @skdh #Physics #Quantum The "theory" is an interpretation of QM, invalid and nonsensical, and no better for understanding reality than the Harry Potter books. Quantum computing is a pipedream.