- Paradigm asymmetry: Classical impossibility proof holds only under same-paradigm assumption — drop it and it doesn't apply
- Complexity gap: BPP ≠ BQP → quantum gatekeeper states are computationally opaque to any classical agent, regardless of intelligence
- Pain mechanism: Barrier is embedded in the agent's substrate — breach attempts cause decoherence in the attacker's own reasoning, not in some external wall
- Formal model: Seven theorems, six attack vectors, defense-in-depth → P(breach) ≈ 10⁻²³
- Standard physics only: No exotic QM, no speculative extensions — complexity-theoretic assumptions + standard decoherence dynamics
Author here. TL;DR:
- Paradigm asymmetry: Classical impossibility proof holds only under same-paradigm assumption — drop it and it doesn't apply - Complexity gap: BPP ≠ BQP → quantum gatekeeper states are computationally opaque to any classical agent, regardless of intelligence - Pain mechanism: Barrier is embedded in the agent's substrate — breach attempts cause decoherence in the attacker's own reasoning, not in some external wall - Formal model: Seven theorems, six attack vectors, defense-in-depth → P(breach) ≈ 10⁻²³ - Standard physics only: No exotic QM, no speculative extensions — complexity-theoretic assumptions + standard decoherence dynamics
Summary: https://redact-app.com/publications/quantum-containment.html