Minimum Viable Quantum Computational Whole — III

Pravir Malik
3 min readAug 18



Through constructing a world based on the double-slit experiment, Minimum Viable Quantum Computational Whole — II sought to elucidate what of the quantum computational whole has evaded us due to decomposing and recomposing F(X) with probability and statistics.

There have been variations on the double-slit experiment, and this post will focus on the effect of some of these by introducing the notion of an ‘observer,’ defined as some animate or inanimate entity that observes — aka interacts with or influences — F(X) in some way. Such acts of observation cause the materialization of some function w(F(X)).

  1. Let us start by considering the act of employing probability and statistics to decompose and recompose F(X). As an act of ‘observation,’ this results in q(F(X)) that has nothing of the wholeness of F(X). F(X) still exists as a whole, except that we are not dealing with that anymore. We may think we are dealing with F(X), but in reality, we are now dealing with q(F(X)). If F(X) contained x-properties, {x1, x2, …, xn}, then we can think of q(F(X)) as containing a different set of observed properties, {q1, q2, …, qm}. Any q-element of this set will be superposed with all other elements of the q-set. Entangled q-elements will result in a new state, e{q1, q2, …, qm}. The quantum computing possibilities of q(F(X)) will be based on the q-set and will have nothing to do with F(X). In other words, the possibilities of an r(x) (as discussed in the previous post) will simply never occur. It is perhaps this version of quantum computation that many players in the industry are currently focused on.
  2. Another type of observation occurs when we place a measuring device between the double-slit and the screen behind. Depending on how it is measured, it may result in a q-property or an x-property. If the former, then subsequent entanglement, superposition, and quantum computation possibilities would be similar to that discussed in #1. If the latter, then depending on how the x-property is made to interrelate with other potential x-properties, quantum computational possibilities could tend toward q(F(X)) or toward some other fraction of F(X), u(F(X)).
  3. A third type of observer is the screen, and it causes F(X) to display itself as numerous strands, each built on a different x-property of F(X) (refer to previous post). The resulting quantum computational possibilities would be a variation on that defined in #2, in that if it were to tend to u(F(X)), since it is based on the set {f(x1), f(x2), …,f(xn)}, it could become a larger fraction v(F(X)) such that v > u.
  4. A fourth type of observer is defined by another type of whole, Fo(Xo). Fo(Xo) could represent an observer with unique intent. A way to think of intent is that it could be thought-based or emotion-based, and the intersection of F(X) with some Fo(Xo) will result in another unique whole [F+Fo](X+Xo), where ‘+’ indicates a merger of sorts. Two such intent-based observers interacting with the same F(X) could therefore cause different quantum computational outcomes with the observers experiencing ‘different’ objective realities (this appears to be consistent with recent quantum mechanics experiments suggesting variation in objective reality).

In the point of view elaborated in this mini-series, the quantum level is interpreted as complex, sensitive, and adjustable via feedback, and as such, there are different ways to conduct quantum computation that will require different architectures and result in completely different outcomes. The default industry approach seems to have been captured by #1. In contrast, #2, #3, and #4 represent unique and different types of quantum computing opportunities, progressively reaching into more and more creative realms based on the evolving form, r(x), as its journeys to quantum wholeness as represented by F(X).

Index to Cosmology of Light Links



Pravir Malik

A view of the world through light and fractals