This perspective is interesting and potentially valuable, but it must be emphasized that quantum mechanics has linear evolution and hence “no cloning”. That means, when the registers are quantum objects, there is no such thing as copying a value into a register — there is only one version of each object, and you’re always manipulating it directly. That’s one aspect which leads to very difficult questions when thinking of “creating” at local nodes — because it’s the same object/copy that’s accessed at different nodes by various observers — so how can we ensure consistency of observations?
Thanks, understood- the metaphor wasn't intended to imply the registers themselves were quantum objects, more that the process of observation / measurement of some quantum phenomenon- metaphorically- could be a creative/derivative process. That metaphor/mental model would conflict, to some degree, with the centralized/cache coherency metaphor you cite, that aligns more with colloquial understanding of "measure."
Whether one is more appropriate than another I don't know. But I find the decentralized model produces more interesting naive questions for me to puzzle over. Of course those questions likely lead in a completely wrong direction. Cheers, thanks for engagement.
