So the brain is pretty good at thinking because it has a lot of connections between neurons

the limitation is the number of connections, the more the better

when building a computer, is there a way of making one that doesn't has this limit of a physical "cable" connection between two places?

instead of using "cables" it will use the electromagnetic force, so problems like simulating the gravitational force between particles will be solved in O(1)

does a computer that work in this way has a name?

Why would we have a name for something that doesn't exist? Perhaps you should ask a theologian, because that doesn't seem to be an obstacle to them.

[EDIT: I probably deserve bad ratings for this post (my reputation points can go jump in the lake), but it should be noted that this thread belongs in the lounge and not in this forum.]

Is your question about the "solid" nature of these connections, or the fact that our computing systems are based on things being connected to each other through connections?

If the first, even if you used some kind of electromagnetic connections im pretty sure there would be fancy interference effects to ruin it when you have a trillion emitters and absorbers.

If the latter, dont quantum computers supposedly work like that (I have no idea), ie. you set up some state and the system through quantum magic goes to some other state which you can somehow interpret as an answer (???). I guess you could construct various types, you just need some input, then let universe do some work on it, then read the output (you have to express your problem in a form that can be solved by the particular physical process though).

dont quantum computers supposedly work like that

I thought they worked with cats in boxes, along with Geiger counters some radioactive stuff, and a container of poison gas.

Wikipedia says they look like this:

does a computer that work in this way has a name?

Yes.

It is called a theoretical design.

Go ahead and find a way to actually implement it, then you can name it whatever you want. You are trying to generate some sort of field-based connectivity rather than physical connectivity.

I suggest getting a doctorate in a relevant engineering or physics field first as it will probably help with the necessary background and give you some credibility when you release your idea.

Just because its wireless doesn't mean that it doesn't have a connections limit. Lets say you have N components in a chip, whether they are wired or wireless you still have a theoretical maximum of N^2 connections (components talking to other components) at any one time.

I assume the hate and sarcasm is because the OP appears to think he is smarter than everybody else?

Not sure this is the case and I think it is a very valid question to ask.

After all he does ask for the right keywords to research what smart people say about using fields instead of cables for data transfer ...

I see nothing wrong with that.

Why would we have a name for something that doesn't exist? Perhaps you should ask a theologian, because that doesn't seem to be an obstacle to them.

What if we never used words for theoretical concepts ... and things that have not been created yet?

It is just a weird thing to say. Science certainly does not agree with that view either.

I have been dayderaming about a new design lately where the system consists of small units connected with multiple similar units which are connected with other units making up a huge network, and the conductivity (signal strength) between the units depends on how often signals are sent through that connection (if no signals are sent, the conductivity would degrade over time in case of a RAM like unit). And the whole system is asynchronous and analogue (signals are forwarded immediately between the connections).

Maybe I have just sketched neural up networks? Anyhoo, a hardware implementation of it...

(though I'm not any smart to think how would a system of even a few of these units work or if it could do anything useful, or how could in provide a useful output for some input).

instead of using "cables" it will use the electromagnetic force, so problems like simulating the gravitational force between particles will be solved in O(1)
does a computer that work in this way has a name?

Of course. It's called "The Universe". Why make a simulator when you can build the model USING reality?

Why would we have a name for something that doesn't exist?

you mean it's is not possible,if yes, why?

you still have a theoretical maximum of N^2 connections (components talking to other components) at any one time.

nop, it will be (N^2-N)/2 connections

Connectivity is only one part of the problem -- for example, brains are great at abstract thinking--better than computers--but your average dollar-store calculator is far better than humans at calculating. Furthermore, connections are no worse than their limitations, its not the connection that's "bad" save for its physical necessity. Give me the same physical connection with greater bandwidth and less latency any day of the week, and I'll be more than happy to take it.

Some of the folks in this thread might be interested in Parallella.