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
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
Full paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400670258_Self-Refe...