The Metaphysics of Protection: Emergence, Agency, and the Ontological Status of Logical Qubits

Kamran Majid

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

The Metaphysics of Protection: Emergence, Agency, and the Ontological Status of Logical Qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the logical qubit is a new ontological kind, a 'stabilized information-bearer' maintained by engineered emergence.

desk verdict A serious, technically literate philosophy paper that invents a useful category ('engineered emergence') and gives philosophers a new concrete object to argue about; the main weakness is that the paper's boldest ontological claim rests on an undefended deflationary reading of the controller's goal-directedness. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00023 v1 pith:AEDDPTHF submitted 2025-06-17 physics.hist-ph quant-ph

Kamran Majid This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-phquant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp03.65.Ta

keywords quantumerrorcorrectionlogicalqubitengineeredemergencefault-tolerantcomputationontologicalstatusdownwardcausationinterpretationsofmechanicsShipTheseus

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the logical qubit of fault-tolerant quantum computing is not a convenient abstraction but a new ontological kind: a 'stabilized information-bearer' whose essence is informational and whose existence is an ongoing physical achievement. It argues that quantum error correction actively engineers the logical qubit's stability through a goal-directed feedback loop of syndrome measurement, decoding, and correction, rather than merely protecting a pre-existing state. This 'engineered emergence' is proposed as a third category alongside weak and strong emergence, with a transparent form of downward causation. The paper also uses the logical qubit as a testbed for interpretations of quantum mechanics, arguing that it gives agent-centered views a mechanism for intersubjective agreement and poses sharp challenges to realist views. A sympathetic reader should care because the argument turns an engineering necessity into a concrete case where identity, causality, and the reality of information become experimentally grounded questions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the stabilizer-formalism error correction cycle, especially as realized in the surface code. A logical qubit lives in the simultaneous +1 eigenspace of commuting stabilizer generators; local errors anticommute with some generators and flip their measured eigenvalues, producing an error syndrome. A classical decoder infers the most probable error and applies corrective operations, returning the state to the code space without revealing the logical information. This closed loop of measurement, classical inference, and feedback is what the paper calls 'engineered emergence,' and it is the concrete structure that realizes algorithmic downward causation and underwrites the claim that the logical qubit is an actively maintained information-bearer.

What would settle it

A concrete check: remove the classical decoder from the loop and replace it with a fixed, non-adaptive unitary encoding operation that applies the same correction to every syndrome. If a logical qubit with the same threshold and logical error rate can be maintained that way, then the goal-directed feedback loop is not what carries the stability, and 'engineered emergence' loses its distinctive causal content. Alternatively, show that a purely autonomous all-quantum decoder with no separate classical controller achieves identical protection, which would indicate that the classical informational layer is not the source of the emergence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the logical qubit occupies a genuinely new ontological category. It is not a fundamental particle, not a mere calculational fiction, and not a standard quasiparticle, because its defining stability is not a passive consequence of the substrate's Hamiltonian but is actively and continuously imposed by a classical controller executing an error-correcting algorithm. The logical qubit's identity is functional: it persists as long as the quantum error correction protocol keeps the logical error rate below a threshold, making the Ship of Theseus puzzle quantitative. The correction loop realizes 'algorithmic downward causation': the abstract goal of preserving logical information, encoded in the decoder's algorithm, becomes a causal factor in the physical evolution of the qubits. The paper concludes that the logical qubit is 'what information looks like when it is forced to survive in the physical world.'

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the classical controller's syndrome measurement, decoding, and correction loop is a genuine goal-directed causal process that actively maintains the logical qubit, rather than a convenient way for experimenters to describe what is happening; if that loop is only bookkeeping, the claim that the logical qubit is actively engineered loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the logical qubit is a stabilized information-bearer, then persistence of complex engineered systems can be defined by thresholded function rather than substrate continuity, giving a quantitative answer to identity-through-change puzzles.
If error correction instantiates algorithmic downward causation, then technology can create new effective physical regularities: the decoding algorithm becomes part of the causal story that explains why logical qubits behave lawfully, blurring the line between physical law and computation.
If the logical qubit is a physical model of belief-updating or relational facts, then agent-centered interpretations gain a concrete mechanism for intersubjective agreement: information externalized in a robust classical controller can be checked by a second agent.
If the logical qubit is a branch-invariant pattern in the Many-Worlds picture, then that interpretation must treat the classical decoder's reliable functioning as a precondition for the construction of stable quantum objects, raising a classical-quantum circularity challenge.
If Bohmian mechanics is correct, the logical qubit must be realized as a non-local feature of the guiding wave, and error correction becomes a series of interventions that sculpt that wave; this places heavy explanatory load on the wavefunction's computational role.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: compare logical-qubit persistence across code families such as surface, color, and repetition codes to see whether the thresholded-functional identity criterion matches empirical noise-limited lifetimes; if codes with equal logical error rates nevertheless differ in ontological behavior, the functional criterion would need refinement.
The category of engineered emergence probably generalizes beyond quantum computers to any system whose defining stability is actively maintained by an external feedback loop, such as topologically protected memories, autonomous decoders, or error-corrected biological information, so the paper's machinery could name a general class of feedback-sustained entities.
If algorithmic downward causation is literal, then replacing the classical controller with a different implementation, such as an autonomous all-quantum decoder, should change the causal structure of the protected qubit; that consequence is testable in principle and is not settled by the paper.
The spacetime analogy, taken at face value, implies that the 'stabilized information-bearer' may describe not only laboratory systems but also the robust geometry of spacetime; that cosmic extension is speculative in the paper and remains an inference here.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real contribution here is not the physics—stabilizer codes and the surface code are standard—but the packaging. Majid gives philosophers a genuinely new object of study (the logical qubit as 'stabilized information-bearer') and a new category ('engineered emergence') that sits between passive weak emergence and strong emergence. The Ship of Theseus in Hilbert space is more than a cute analogy: tying persistence to logical error rate and the threshold theorem gives the identity debate something quantitative to grab onto. The QBism and relational-QM sections are also well handled; the suggestion that the QEC loop physicalizes intersubjective agreement is a real insight, not a metaphor stretched to fit.

The paper is technically accurate and well cited. The threshold theorem, syndrome measurement, and topological protection are all described correctly. The taxonomy table is clear. This is a competent philosopher of physics who knows the experimental literature.

Now the soft spots, in proportion.

The central ontological claim—that the logical qubit is a new kind of entity and that engineered emergence involves 'algorithmic downward causation'—depends on treating the classical controller's syndrome-measure/decode/correct loop as intrinsically goal-directed. The stress-test note is right that this is unexamined. A deflationary reading is available: the controller is just a finite-state machine; 'goal' and 'information' are pragmatic labels; the stability is ordinary weak emergence of a joint quantum-classical system. The paper lists goal-directedness as feature two and asserts that high-level purpose determines low-level evolution, but it never defends this against the deflationary alternative. Relatedly, the causal arrow is not literally downward: the controller is external to the qubit register, so the influence is sideways between subsystems, not down from the logical entity to its constituents. That is a real category problem for the 'downward' part of the claim.

That said, the paper can be read more charitably as a proposal: here is a category worth having, here is the phenomenon, now let us argue about whether it reduces. Framed that way, the soft spot is a programmatic gap, not a fatal flaw. The paper does not hide it; the argument is explicitly analogical and taxonomic.

The other issue is minor: 'engineered emergence' overlaps with existing notions of designed/functional emergence in biology (e.g., organismic goal-directedness), and the paper does not differentiate from those. A paragraph would fix it.

Who is this for? Philosophers of physics and foundations-of-QI people. A serious referee could get a solid paper out of this with a requested expansion on the goal-directedness objection. It deserves peer review, not desk rejection. I would not cite it in my own work yet, but I would bring it to reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that fault-tolerant quantum computation, specifically quantum error correction (QEC), motivates a new metaphysics of the logical qubit. It claims that a logical qubit is a new ontological kind—a 'stabilized information-bearer' whose identity is functional and threshold-dependent (§3.1, §3.3); that QEC exhibits 'engineered emergence,' a third type of emergence involving goal-directed, information-based feedback and 'algorithmic downward causation' (§4.1–4.2); and that QEC provides a discriminating testbed for QBism, RQM, MWI, and Bohmian mechanics (§5). The presentation of stabilizer codes, the surface code, and decoherence is accurate, and the paper explicitly marks its AdS/CFT speculation as speculative. However, the distinctively philosophical conclusions depend on an unexamined commitment: that the classical controller's algorithm is a genuinely goal-directed higher-level cause rather than a merely observer-relative description of an external feedback loop. The manuscript does not defend this commitment against a deflationary alternative.

Significance. If the central claims could be established, the paper would make a meaningful contribution by giving a concrete, quantifiable instance of persistence and by proposing a category—engineered emergence—that could be exported beyond QEC. Its strengths include an accurate and well-cited presentation of the physics (Fowler et al., Preskill, Kitaev, Nielsen–Chuang), a clear taxonomy in Table 2, and a welcome concreteness in connecting philosophical debates to a real experimental program, such as the Google Quantum AI surface-code results. The interpretation review in §5 is suggestive rather than decisive. Since the paper is programmatic and interpretive, its value hinges on whether the 'engineered emergence' concept can survive a deflationary reading; the manuscript as written leaves that point unresolved.

major comments (3)

[§4.2 / Table 2] The inference from the QEC feedback loop to 'algorithmic downward causation' is not supported. As described, the controller is an external finite-state machine interacting with the quantum register; its corrections can be included in a joint unitary-plus-classical description, with 'goal' and 'information' functioning as bookkeeping labels. The paper even concedes that 'the entire process is, in principle, describable by the known laws of quantum and classical mechanics' in §4.1. The manuscript therefore needs an explicit criterion for genuine downward causation and must address why the controller's purpose is not merely a projection by the experimenter. Without this, 'engineered emergence' reduces to weak emergence plus external feedback, and the ontological claim of §3.3 loses its load-bearing support.
[§3.3] The claim that the logical qubit is 'information made manifest' and a new ontological kind is asserted rather than argued. The logical state is defined as a subspace of the joint Hilbert space, and the same physical process can be redescribed without reference to the code's information content. The paper draws on the ψ-ontic/ψ-epistemic distinction but does not show why the logical qubit's dual character constitutes a new kind rather than a familiar case of encoding-relative description. A criterion for when informational content is physically real is needed, because the existence of the new kind is the paper's central ontological claim.
[§5.2.1] The MWI discussion invokes 'branch pruning or re-merging' as a possible mechanism. In the Everett interpretation branches are not pruned or re-merged: unitary evolution is deterministic and invertible, and decohered branches remain dynamically independent. The corrected account is the one the paper already gives in its 'second, perhaps more elegant' option—logical information invariant across branches. This should be stated as the only option, not as one of two possibilities. The separate challenge about the classical decoder's branch-relative functioning remains legitimate and should be reframed accordingly.

minor comments (6)

[§1] The manuscript repeatedly says 'This report pivots...' and 'this report aims...'; for journal style, 'paper' would be more appropriate.
[Reference [1]] Reference [1] (Cuffaro) is cited with only 'ResearchGate' and lacks full publication data; please provide the journal or arXiv identifier.
[§3.1] The sentence 'The logical qubit is a logical qubit—it maintains its identity—if and only if...' is tautological and should be rephrased.
[Table 1] In the 'Physical Qubit' row, the state vector notation 'α|0⟩+β|1⟩' is missing a normalization condition, and in the 'Logical Qubit' row the corresponding expression should be written with consistent notation; the missing space before 'localized' is also a typographical issue.
[§4.3] Although the paper flags this subsection as speculative, the concluding sentence that 'the very fabric of reality might be a form of emergent, error-corrected structure' could be read as a consequence of the main argument; it should be clearly marked as one speculative option.
[§5.1] The statement 'the logical qubit is a stabilized belief' should be explicitly qualified as a claim within a QBist reading, to avoid seeming to assert a global ontology that the rest of the paper does not defend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper proposes definitional philosophical categories and draws on external QEC physics without deriving predictions from fitted inputs or self-cited uniqueness theorems.

full rationale

The paper is a philosophical taxonomy and interpretive proposal, not a derivation that presupposes its conclusion. The QEC mechanics it relies on—stabilizer codes, surface codes, syndrome measurement, and the threshold theorem—are presented as standard physics and cited to independent external literature (Nielsen & Chuang, Preskill, Fowler et al., Kitaev, Gottesman, Google Quantum AI). The new notions, 'stabilized information-bearer' and 'engineered emergence,' are explicitly introduced as proposed categories, not as consequences derived from those categories. The features of engineered emergence in section 4.1 (active maintenance, goal-directedness, information-based feedback) are selected from the standard description of the QEC cycle, so the classification of logical-qubit stability as engineered emergence is a definitional labeling exercise rather than a circular reduction: the paper never uses the label to infer new physical facts about QEC, and it never treats its own classification as empirical confirmation. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-citations used as load-bearing support, and no imported author-specific uniqueness theorems. The passage in section 5.2.1 that mentions 'a potential circularity' is an internal critique of Many-Worlds ontology, not an admission of circularity in the paper's own argument. The central claims are interpretive and stand or fall on philosophical argumentation, not on circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or new physical entities are introduced. The novel terms 'engineered emergence' and 'stabilized information-bearer' are conceptual categories, not physical postulates.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Stabilizer formalism and surface code physics, including the threshold theorem, are correct descriptions of QEC.
The paper's analysis rests entirely on the standard QEC framework (refs [16, 17, 20]) without re-deriving it.
ad hoc to paper The logical qubit is a legitimate physical system or entity rather than a mere calculational device.
The paper argues for this but treats it as a premise for the Ship of Theseus analysis in section 3.1.
ad hoc to paper A classical controller can be treated as an agent with beliefs for QBism.
Section 5.1 maps the controller to the QBist agent without defending the attribution of beliefs to a computational system.
domain assumption AdS/CFT and the 'It from Qubit' program provide relevant evidence for QEC-based emergence.
Section 4.3 relies on speculative quantum-gravity results [37, 38].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Metaphysics of Protection: Emergence, Agency, and the Ontological Status of Logical Qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AEDDPTHF

@misc{pith2026250700023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Metaphysics of Protection: Emergence, Agency, and the Ontological Status of Logical Qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AEDDPTHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00023}
}

read the original abstract

This paper argues that the practice of fault-tolerant quantum computation, specifically the mechanism of Quantum Error Correction (QEC), offers a profoundly new lens through which to examine foundational questions of ontology, emergence, and interpretation. We move beyond the standard debate on quantum speedup to ask: What is the nature of the entity--the logical qubit--that is being protected, and what does the active, goal-directed process of its protection reveal about physical reality? We argue that the logical qubit presents a unique case study in the metaphysics of identity, functioning as a quantifiable "Ship of Theseus" in Hilbert space. We introduce the concept of "engineered emergence" to describe the active, information-driven stabilization of the logical qubit, distinguishing it from passive forms of emergence and positioning it as a new category of causal structure. Finally, we demonstrate that the logical qubit serves as a powerful new testbed for major interpretations of quantum mechanics (including agent-centered, Many-Worlds, and Bohmian views), revealing novel strengths and challenges for each. We conclude that the technological imperative of fault-tolerance is not merely an engineering problem but a catalyst for deep philosophical insight, transforming abstract debates into concrete physical questions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

Cuffaro, M. (2013). On the necessity of entanglement for the explanation of quantum speedup. ResearchGate

work page 2013
[2]

(2018).Quantum Computation and Logic: How Quantum Computers Have Inspired Logical Investigations

Sergioli, G., Leporini, R., Giuntini, R., & Dalla Chiara, M. (2018).Quantum Computation and Logic: How Quantum Computers Have Inspired Logical Investigations. Springer

work page 2018
[3]

Jozsa, R., & Linden, N. (2003). On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 459(2036), 2011-2032

work page 2003
[4]

A., & Chuang, I

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010).Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press

work page 2010
[5]

Gottesman, D. (2009). An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.2557

arXiv 2009
[6]

Terhal, B. M. (2015). Quantum error correction for quantum memories.Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(2), 307

work page 2015
[7]

A., & Brun, T

Lidar, D. A., & Brun, T. A. (Eds.). (2013).Quantum error correction. Cambridge University Press

work page 2013
[8]

Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (1997). Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(pp. 176-188)

work page 1997

Show all 55 references

[9]

Harlow, D. (2016). Jerusalem lectures on quantum gravity.Reviews of Modern Physics, 88(1), 015002

2016
[10]

Preskill, J. (1998). Fault-tolerant quantum computation. InIntroduction to quantum computation and information(pp. 213-269). World Scientific

1998
[11]

Wallace, D. (2022). Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics

2022
[12]

Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical.Reviews of modern physics, 75(3), 715

2003
[13]

(2007).Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition

Schlosshauer, M. (2007).Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer Science & Business Media

2007
[14]

Zurek, W. H. (2022).Quantum Theory of the Classical: Einselection, Envariance, and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Cambridge University Press

2022
[15]

(2012).The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpre- tation

Wallace, D. (2012).The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpre- tation. Oxford University Press

2012
[16]

Kitaev, A. Y . (2003). Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of Physics, 303(1), 2-30

2003
[17]

G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J

Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012). Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A, 86(3), 032324

2012
[18]

Dennis, E., Kitaev, A., Landahl, A., & Preskill, J. (2002). Topological quantum memory.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43(9), 4452-4505

2002
[19]

(1997).Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

Gottesman, D. (1997).Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. PhD thesis, Caltech

1997
[20]

Knill, E., & Laflamme, R. (1997). Theory of quantum error-correcting codes.Physical Review A, 55(2), 900. 14

1997
[21]

(1986).On the Plurality of Worlds

Lewis, D. (1986).On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell

1986
[22]

(2001).Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time

Sider, T. (2001).Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford University Press

2001
[23]

Anderson, P. W. (1963). Plasmons, gauge invariance, and mass.Physical Review, 130(1), 439

1963
[24]

Castellani, E. (2002). On the meaning of ’emergent’ in the context of condensed matter physics. In Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections(pp. 265-278). Cambridge University Press

2002
[25]

Google Quantum AI. (2023). Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature, 614(7949), 676-681

2023
[26]

Harrigan, N., & Spekkens, R. W. (2010). Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states.Foundations of Physics, 40(2), 125-157

2010
[27]

F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T

Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T. (2012). On the reality of the quantum state.Nature Physics, 8(6), 475-478

2012
[28]

Timpson, C. G. (2013).Quantum information theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Oxford University Press

2013
[29]

(2016).Bananaworld: Quantum mechanics for primates

Bub, J. (2016).Bananaworld: Quantum mechanics for primates. Oxford University Press

2016
[30]

(2019).Philosophy of physics: Quantum theory

Maudlin, T. (2019).Philosophy of physics: Quantum theory. Princeton University Press

2019
[31]

Wallace, D. (2020). On the Plurality of Quantum Theories: Quantum theory as a framework, and its implications for the quantum measurement problem. InThe Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics(pp. 9-26). Routledge

2020
[32]

A., & Humphreys, P

Bedau, M. A., & Humphreys, P. (Eds.). (2008).Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science. MIT press

2008
[33]

Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence.Philosophical studies, 95(1-2), 3-36

1999
[34]

C., et al

Marchetti, M. C., et al. (2013). Hydrodynamics of soft active matter.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(3), 1143

2013
[35]

Ramaswamy, S. (2010). The mechanics and statistics of active matter.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 1(1), 323-345

2010
[36]

O’Connor, T., & Wong, H. Y . (2020). Emergent Properties.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos- ophy

2020
[37]

Almheiri, A., Dong, X., & Harlow, D. (2015). Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(4), 1-52

2015
[38]

Pastawski, F., Yoshida, B., Harlow, D., & Preskill, J. (2015). Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: A toy model.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(6), 1-50

2015
[39]

Harlow, D. (2018). TASI lectures on the emergence of the bulk in AdS/CFT.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01040

2018 arXiv
[40]

A., & Schack, R

Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2013). Quantum-Bayesian coherence.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(4), 1693

2013
[41]

von Baeyer, H. C. (2016).QBism: The future of quantum physics. Harvard University Press. 15

2016
[42]

Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics.International journal of theoretical physics, 35(8), 1637-1678

1996
[43]

Laudisa, F., & Rovelli, C. (2019). Relational Quantum Mechanics.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

2019
[44]

Di Biagio, A., & Rovelli, C. (2022). Relational Quantum Mechanics is about facts, not states: A reply to Pienaar and Brukner.Foundations of Physics, 52(3), 1-21

2022
[45]

Adlam, E., & Rovelli, C. (2023). Information is physical: Cross-perspective links in Relational Quantum Mechanics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13342

2023 arXiv
[46]

Pienaar, J. (2021). QBism and Relational Quantum Mechanics compared.Foundations of Physics, 51(5), 1-18

2021
[47]

Everett, H. (1957). ’Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics.Reviews of modern physics, 29(3), 454

1957
[48]

S., & Graham, N

DeWitt, B. S., & Graham, N. (Eds.). (1973).The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (V ol. 2). Princeton University Press

1973
[49]

Vaidman, L. (2018). Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.The Stanford Encyclo- pedia of Philosophy

2018
[50]

Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ’hidden’ variables. I.Physical review, 85(2), 166

1952
[51]

(2009).Bohmian mechanics: the physics and mathematics of quantum theory

D ¨urr, D., & Teufel, S. (2009).Bohmian mechanics: the physics and mathematics of quantum theory. Springer Science & Business Media

2009
[52]

Goldstein, S. (2017). Bohmian Mechanics.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

2017
[53]

(2016).Making sense of quantum mechanics

Bricmont, J. (2016).Making sense of quantum mechanics. Springer

2016
[54]

Norsen, T. (2011). The theory of (inter)acting beables.Foundations of Physics, 41(3), 333-363

2011
[55]

Esfeld, M., Lazarovici, D., Hubert, M., & D ¨urr, D. (2014). The ontology of Bohmian mechanics. The British journal for the philosophy of science, 65(4), 773-796. 16

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cuffaro, M. (2013). On the necessity of entanglement for the explanation of quantum speedup. ResearchGate

work page 2013

[2] [2]

(2018).Quantum Computation and Logic: How Quantum Computers Have Inspired Logical Investigations

Sergioli, G., Leporini, R., Giuntini, R., & Dalla Chiara, M. (2018).Quantum Computation and Logic: How Quantum Computers Have Inspired Logical Investigations. Springer

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Jozsa, R., & Linden, N. (2003). On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 459(2036), 2011-2032

work page 2003

[4] [4]

A., & Chuang, I

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010).Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Gottesman, D. (2009). An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.2557

arXiv 2009

[6] [6]

Terhal, B. M. (2015). Quantum error correction for quantum memories.Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(2), 307

work page 2015

[7] [7]

A., & Brun, T

Lidar, D. A., & Brun, T. A. (Eds.). (2013).Quantum error correction. Cambridge University Press

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (1997). Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(pp. 176-188)

work page 1997