International Journal of Advance Research Publication and Reviews

International Journal of Advance Research Publication and Reviews
Peer-Reviewed | Multi-Disciplinary Journal

ISSN: 3049-0103 (O)

Impact Factor: 4.33

Pruned Histories and the Computational Multiverse: What Does Quantum Speedup Ontologically Require?

Author

Ian Staley

Abstract

 Deutsch's influential argument holds that the exponential speedup of quantum algorithms such as Shor's is best explained by computation distributed across ontologically real parallel branches of the wavefunction. This paper asks what minimal ontological commitments are actually required to underwrite observed quantum computational advantages. Drawing on the framework of final-state constraints and informational pruning developed in prior work, we argue that Deutsch's computational argument depends on an unpruned Everettian ontology in which all branches persist as computational substrates. We show that pruned-histories interpretations, in which boundary conditions or decoherence-based selection restrict the space of ontologically realized branches, preserve the empirical predictions of quantum computation while denying the parallel-universes inference. The argument requires three positive commitments: a records-based criterion for ontological commitment, a thermodynamically graded boundary between unitary computation and outcome-stabilization, and an account of computational speedup grounded in global Hilbert-space structure and entanglement rather than in a population of parallel worlds. We situate this result within the ontological models framework and recent observer-dependence theorems, including Frauchiger-Renner, Bong et al., and Walleghem et al., and engage directly with Hewitt-Horsman's functionalist defense of computational branch realism. We conclude that the Deutsch argument, while rhetorically powerful, is interpretation-laden rather than interpretation-neutral.

Keywords

quantum computation; quantum foundations; Many-Worlds Interpretation; final-state constraints; records-based realism

Full Text:

Download Paper PDF

References

  • Aaronson, S. (2013a). Quantum computing since Democritus. Cambridge University Press.
  • Aaronson, S. (2013b). Why philosophers should care about computational complexity. In B. J. Copeland, C. J. Posy, & O. Shagrir (Eds.), Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and beyond(pp. 261-327). MIT Press.
  • Adlam, E. (2024). What does ‘(non)-absoluteness of observed events’ mean? Foundations of Physics, 54(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1
  • Aharonov, Y., Bergmann, P. G., & Lebowitz, J. L. (1964). Time symmetry in the quantum process of measurement. Physical Review, 134(6B), B1410-B1416. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.134.B1410
  • Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., & Shushi, T. (2022). Complex-valued classical behavior from the correspondence limit of quantum mechanics with two boundary conditions. Foundations of Physics, 52(3), 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-022-00574-w
  • Aharonov, Y., & Vaidman, L. (2008). The two-state vector formalism: An updated review. In J. G. Muga, R. Sala Mayato, & Í. L. Egusquiza (Eds.), Time in quantum mechanics(Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 734, pp. 399-447). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73473-4_13
  • Anastopoulos, C. (2025). Final states in quantum cosmology: Cosmic acceleration as a quantum postselection effect. Physical Review D, 111(6), 064045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.064045
  • Arrasmith, A., Cincio, L., Sornborger, A. T., Zurek, W. H., & Coles, P. J. (2019). Variational consistent histories as a hybrid algorithm for quantum foundations. Nature Communications, 10, 3438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11417-0
  • Bacciagaluppi, G., & Valentini, A. (2009). Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bong, K.-W., Utreras-Alarcón, A., Ghafari, F., Liang, Y.-C., Tischler, N., Cavalcanti, E. G., Pryde, G. J., & Wiseman, H. M. (2020). A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox. Nature Physics, 16(12), 1199-1205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x
  • Bub, J. (2021). Understanding the Frauchiger-Renner argument. Foundations of Physics, 51(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00420-5
  • Cuffaro, M. E. (2012). Many worlds, the cluster-state quantum computer, and the problem of the preferred basis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 43(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2011.11.001
  • Cuffaro, M. E. (2015). How-possibly explanations in (quantum) computer science. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 737-748. https://doi.org/10.1086/683243
  • Cuffaro, M. E. (2017). On the significance of the Gottesman-Knill theorem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv016
  • Cuffaro, M. E., & Hartmann, S. (2024). The open systems view. Philosophy of Physics, 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.31389/pop.90
  • del Rio, L., & Renner, R. (2024). Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory. Nature Communications, 15, 3024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47172-0
  • Deutsch, D. (1985). Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 400(1818), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1985.0070
  • Deutsch, D. (1997). The fabric of reality. Allen Lane/Penguin.
  • Deutsch, D. (2002). The structure of the multiverse. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 458(2028), 2911-2923. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2002.1015
  • Deutsch, D. (2004). It from qubit. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality: Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity(pp. 90-102). Cambridge University Press.
  • Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (2013). Quantum physics without quantum philosophy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30690-7
  • Duwell, A. (2007). The Many-Worlds Interpretation and quantum computation. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 1007-1018. https://doi.org/10.1086/525640
  • Elitzur, A. C., & Vaidman, L. (1993). Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements. Foundations of Physics, 23(7), 987-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00736012
  • Everett, H. (1957). ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454-462. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454
  • Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2018). Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nature Communications, 9, 3711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8
  • Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D., & Schack, R. (2014). An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 82(8), 749-754. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4874855
  • Gell-Mann, M., & Hartle, J. B. (1993). Classical equations for quantum systems. Physical Review D, 47(8), 3345-3382. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3345
  • Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34(2), 470-491. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470
  • Griffiths, R. B. (2002). Consistent quantum theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • Harrigan, N., & Spekkens, R. W. (2010). Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Foundations of Physics, 40(2), 125-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9347-0
  • Healey, R. (2017). The quantum revolution in philosophy. Oxford University Press.
  • Healey, R. (2024). Scientific objectivity and its limits. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 639-662. https://doi.org/10.1086/716169
  • Hewitt-Horsman, C. (2009). An introduction to many worlds in quantum computation. Foundations of Physics, 39(8), 869-902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9300-2
  • Horowitz, G. T., & Maldacena, J. (2004). The black hole final state. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2004(02), 008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/02/008
  • Jozsa, R., & Linden, N. (2003). On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 459(2036), 2011-2032. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2002.1097
  • Lazarovici, D., & Hubert, M. (2019). How quantum mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself. Scientific Reports, 9, 470. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37535-1
  • Lloyd, S., & Preskill, J. (2014). Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014(08), 126. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)126
  • Maudlin, T. (2019). Philosophy of physics: Quantum theory. Princeton University Press.
  • Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information(10th anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Omnès, R. (1994). The interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press.
  • Pearle, P. (1989). Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization. Physical Review A, 39(5), 2277-2289. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2277
  • Proietti, M., Pickston, A., Graffitti, F., Barrow, P., Kundys, D., Branciard, C., Ringbauer, M., & Fedrizzi, A. (2019). Experimental test of local observer independence. Science Advances, 5(9), eaaw9832. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832
  • Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T. (2012). On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8(6), 475-478. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2309
  • Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637-1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261
  • Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., & Wallace, D. (Eds.). (2010). Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality. Oxford University Press.
  • Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9
  • Shor, P. W. (1997). Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5), 1484-1509. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172
  • Spekkens, R. W. (2005). Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A, 71(5), 052108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108
  • Staley, I. (2026). Final-state constraints and informational pruning in quantum histories. International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 12(2), 719-737. https://ijqf.org/archives/8157
  • Steane, A. M. (2025). The extended Wigner's friend, many- and single-worlds and reasoning from observation. Foundations of Physics, 55(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-025-00831-8
  • Vaidman, L. (2013). Past of a quantum particle. Physical Review A, 87(5), 052104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.052104
  • Wallace, D. (2012). The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. Oxford University Press.
  • Wallace, D. (2023). Philosophy of quantum mechanics(PhilSci-Archive No. 22650). University of Pittsburgh. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22650/
  • Walleghem, L., Wagner, R., Yīng, Y., & Schmid, D. (2025). Extended Wigner's friend paradoxes do not require nonlocal correlations. Physical Review A, 112(2), 022212. https://doi.org/10.1103/n4hv-rlgj
  • Walleghem, L., Yīng, Y., Wagner, R., & Schmid, D. (2025). Connecting extended Wigner's friend arguments and noncontextuality. Quantum, 9, 1819. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-07-31-1819
  • Wiseman, H. M., Cavalcanti, E. G., & Rieffel, E. G. (2023). A ‘thoughtful’ Local Friendliness no-go theorem: A prospective experiment with new assumptions to suit. Quantum, 7, 1112. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-09-14-1112
  • Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3), 715-775. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715
Top