The real issue here is the difference between Physics (as a hard mathematical science) and Philosophy.
Physics is math. If you study Physics you will primarily study mathematics. When scientists make discoveries in Physics, or express ideas in mathematics, they are working with mathematics and talking in the language of mathematics.
The reason for this is that Physics, as a hard science, is based on things that are testable. Any other language relies on metaphor, and nuance and shades of meaning. Human languages are by nature inexact and open to interpretation. Mathematics gives an answer that is testable and exact.
Philosophy depends on metaphor and meaning. Ideas can be taken and manipulated, two people can say the same thing with different meanings and different understandings. Many of the findings of Philosophy are untestable and ambiguous. I have no problem with Philosophy. If we are debating the existing of some celestial computer as a philosophical exercise... then fine with me. The ideas are interesting and the consequences are fun to think about... particularly the idea of the Creator of such computer is fascinating.
The mixture of these philosophical musings with a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics is unnecessary. You can muse about a celestial computer without pop-science misunderstanding of scientific terms.
You can't take Quantum Mechanics (a hard science) away from the mathematics. Every concept in Quantum Mechanics is carefully defined mathematically. A English language understanding may work as metaphor, but it is an imperfect metaphor. What counts is the mathematics.
That's my beef. If you don't understand the mathematics (based on differential equations and linear algebra) then you don't really understand anything about Quantum Mechanics. There is an English language metaphor... but understanding a metaphor doesn't count as real understanding.
So why not just have the philosophical musings without the pseudo-science? I don't think I am asking too much.