Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1902.03513

Computational Complexity and the Nature of Quantum Mechanics (Extended version)

Alessio Benavoli, Alessandro Facchini, Marco Zaffalon A

Published Feb 9, 2019• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by having it follow from two main postulates (i) the theory should be logically consistent; (ii) inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1902.03513

Related papers

Computational Complexity and the Nature of Quantum Mechanics

Alessio Benavoli, Alessandro Facchini, Marco Zaffalon A

Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by being based on two main postulates: 1. the theory should be logically consistent; 2. inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.

arXiv:1902.04569•Feb 12, 2019•3 citations

The Weirdness Theorem and the Origin of Quantum Paradoxes

Alessio Benavoli, Alessandro Facchini, Marco Zaffalon A

Abstract We argue that there is a simple, unique, reason for all quantum paradoxes, and that such a reason is not uniquely related to quantum theory. It is rather a mathematical question that arises at the intersection of logic, probability, and computation. We give our ‘weirdness theorem’ that characterises the conditions under which the weirdness will show up. It shows that whenever logic has bounds due to the algorithmic nature of its tasks, then weirdness arises in the special form of negative probabilities or non-classical evaluation functionals. Weirdness is not logical inconsistency, however. It is only the expression of the clash between an unbounded and a bounded view of computation in logic. We discuss the implication of these results for quantum mechanics, arguing in particular that its interpretation should ultimately be computational rather than exclusively physical. We develop in addition a probabilistic theory in the real numbers that exhibits the phenomenon of entanglement, thus concretely showing that the latter is not specific to quantum mechanics.

Foundations of Physics•Sep 28, 2021•3 citations

Quantum computation

Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak

Turning to quantum mechanics … secret, secret, close the doors! we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. … It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. So that's why I like to investigate things. – Richard Feynman, 1964 The only difference between a probabilistic classical world and the equations of the quantum world is that somehow or other it appears as if the probabilities would have to go negative. – Richard Feynman, in “Simulating Physics with Computers,” 1982 Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turning machine in Deutsch's model. … We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turning machines violate the modern complexity theoretic formulation of the Church Turning thesis. We show the existence of a problem relative to an oracle that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turning machine but require super polynomial time on a bounded error probabilistic Turning machine. – E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum Complexity Theory,” 1997 Quantum computing is a new computational model that may be physically realizable and may provide an exponential advantage over “classical” computational models such as probabilistic and deterministic Turing machines.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2009•0 citations

A Class of Deductive Theories that cannot be Deterministic: Classical and Quantum Physics are not deterministic

Iégor Reznikoff

The problem of the determinism of Quantum Mechanics has been a main one during the 20th century. At the same time, in the context of Logic and Set Theory, the importance of ancient paradoxes as well as the appearance of many new ones, has shed light on and deeply influenced the foundations of Mathematics and somehow of Physics. But, strangely, concerning Physics, a paradox which we call the Memory Paradox has remained yet undiscovered, despite its simplicity and remarkable consequences, mostly in Physics and surprisingly in classical Physics that appear to be non deterministic, contrary to the general belief since Newton, Laplace, etc.. The non determinism of Quantum Physics follows without any supplementary hypothesis. This paper extends a previous one (arXiv: 1203.2945v1 [physics.gen-ph] 13 Mar 2012).

arXiv:1203.2945•Mar 13, 2012•0 citations

Theory of quantum computation and philosophy of mathematics. Part I

Krzysztof Wójtowicz

The aim of this paper is to present some basic notions of the theory of quantum computing and to compare them with the basic notions of the classical theory of computation. I am convinced, that the results of quantum computation theory (QCT) are not only interesting in themselves, but also should be taken into account in discussions concerning the nature of mathematical knowledge. The philosophical discussion will however be postponed to another paper. QCT seems not to be well-known among philosophers (at least not to the degree it deserves), so the aim of this paper is to provide the necessary technical preliminaries presented in a way accessible to the general philosophical audience.

Logic and Logical Philosophy•Mar 30, 2010•2 citations

Quantum mechanical computation

James D. Brasher

The physics and the mathematics of computation are examined to provide a foundation and perspective for the investigation of the quantum mechanics of computation. Our purpose is to explore the fundamental limits and constraints imposed on computation by Nature through the laws of physics and the mathematics of computational complexity. Inasmuch as information storage and transmission are an integral part of computation, their physical bounds are considered. The computer is viewed both physically and mathematically as a dynamical system, and is depicted in terms of the basic Turing machine paradigm. Three fundamental classes of the Turing machine are defined; the deterministic, stochastic and quantum Turing machines. Hamiltonian models and physical realizations of quantum computing are described. Quantum computers can perform some tasks which have no classical analogue, but they cannot compute functions that are non-computable by classical means. Some classically intractable problems can be solved with quantum computers.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Mar 1, 1994•0 citations
Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by having it follow from two main postulates (i) the theory should be logically consistent; (ii) inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.
Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by being based on two main postulates: 1. the theory should be logically consistent; 2. inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.
Abstract We argue that there is a simple, unique, reason for all quantum paradoxes, and that such a reason is not uniquely related to quantum theory. It is rather a mathematical question that arises at the intersection of logic, probability, and computation. We give our ‘weirdness theorem’ that characterises the conditions under which the weirdness will show up. It shows that whenever logic has bounds due to the algorithmic nature of its tasks, then weirdness arises in the special form of negative probabilities or non-classical evaluation functionals. Weirdness is not logical inconsistency, however. It is only the expression of the clash between an unbounded and a bounded view of computation in logic. We discuss the implication of these results for quantum mechanics, arguing in particular that its interpretation should ultimately be computational rather than exclusively physical. We develop in addition a probabilistic theory in the real numbers that exhibits the phenomenon of entanglement, thus concretely showing that the latter is not specific to quantum mechanics.
Turning to quantum mechanics … secret, secret, close the doors! we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. … It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. So that's why I like to investigate things. – Richard Feynman, 1964 The only difference between a probabilistic classical world and the equations of the quantum world is that somehow or other it appears as if the probabilities would have to go negative. – Richard Feynman, in “Simulating Physics with Computers,” 1982 Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turning machine in Deutsch's model. … We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turning machines violate the modern complexity theoretic formulation of the Church Turning thesis. We show the existence of a problem relative to an oracle that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turning machine but require super polynomial time on a bounded error probabilistic Turning machine. – E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum Complexity Theory,” 1997 Quantum computing is a new computational model that may be physically realizable and may provide an exponential advantage over “classical” computational models such as probabilistic and deterministic Turing machines.
The problem of the determinism of Quantum Mechanics has been a main one during the 20th century. At the same time, in the context of Logic and Set Theory, the importance of ancient paradoxes as well as the appearance of many new ones, has shed light on and deeply influenced the foundations of Mathematics and somehow of Physics. But, strangely, concerning Physics, a paradox which we call the Memory Paradox has remained yet undiscovered, despite its simplicity and remarkable consequences, mostly in Physics and surprisingly in classical Physics that appear to be non deterministic, contrary to the general belief since Newton, Laplace, etc.. The non determinism of Quantum Physics follows without any supplementary hypothesis. This paper extends a previous one (arXiv: 1203.2945v1 [physics.gen-ph] 13 Mar 2012).
The aim of this paper is to present some basic notions of the theory of quantum computing and to compare them with the basic notions of the classical theory of computation. I am convinced, that the results of quantum computation theory (QCT) are not only interesting in themselves, but also should be taken into account in discussions concerning the nature of mathematical knowledge. The philosophical discussion will however be postponed to another paper. QCT seems not to be well-known among philosophers (at least not to the degree it deserves), so the aim of this paper is to provide the necessary technical preliminaries presented in a way accessible to the general philosophical audience.
The physics and the mathematics of computation are examined to provide a foundation and perspective for the investigation of the quantum mechanics of computation. Our purpose is to explore the fundamental limits and constraints imposed on computation by Nature through the laws of physics and the mathematics of computational complexity. Inasmuch as information storage and transmission are an integral part of computation, their physical bounds are considered. The computer is viewed both physically and mathematically as a dynamical system, and is depicted in terms of the basic Turing machine paradigm. Three fundamental classes of the Turing machine are defined; the deterministic, stochastic and quantum Turing machines. Hamiltonian models and physical realizations of quantum computing are described. Quantum computers can perform some tasks which have no classical analogue, but they cannot compute functions that are non-computable by classical means. Some classically intractable problems can be solved with quantum computers.