I mean, no they cannot be viewed at any point once encrypted unless you have the key. That's the point. Even the intermediate steps are random gibberish unless you have the key
You can call it 'Western' values or 'Christian' values or whatever in order to make it seem chauvinistic all you want, but the simple truth is that these values are often shared by many other religions and places. As an example, look at the success of the Indian Hindus and the Chinese / East Asian Buddhists in the United States and across the globe. For a reverse example, contrary to popular belief, Christians, Sikhs, and Jains in Hindu-majority India are actually richer and more educated on average.
Time and time again, if you go look at the data, you'll find that Islam is almost always the odd one out.
The Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc can all be made to get along with Christians or 'the West'. There is really only one pretty much universally problematic religion, and that's Islam. You can argue this point all you want, but the entirety of Islamic history shows it to be true. You can again (correctly, in some cases) point out various bad actions from Christians (or Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc), but the simple truth is this: it's pretty easy today, in 2025, to imagine how to get along with these people. In places with diverse populations and migrants from these places, there is barely any violent religious conflict. At most you get some fundies in a tizzy over someone else doing their thing.
The only one that consistently performs violence is Islam. And that's something Muslims need to figure out. They don't need to abandon their religion. And they certainly do not need to be harmed for their beliefs. But, they do need to figure out how to integrate with the rest of the world in 2025 in a pluralistic global society.
Funny, I looked into quantum computing and came away knowing pretty well how to use a future quantum computer. The math is pretty straightforward and useful. Now, getting an actual quantum computer with error correction that is scalable... that is still elusive.
Nevertheless, commercial quantum computers exist and do exactly what scientists predicted they would do.
I'm not sure why you're okay with matrices but not the complex numbers. The complex numbers are a particular kind of matrix. Matrices and vector spaces (especially beyond the normal 3 dimensions) are even more mysterious. Complex numbers are fairly typical, and intuitive (rotations in space).
I think the claim is this: the wave function never collapses. However, the effect of the wave function on the environment quickly converges to only one of the two states. We could not know the difference because we cannot directly observe the wave function. We only can see the result as it is magnified onto a macro scale by our observation equipment (or, lacking that, our eyes, which themselves turn a tiny microscopic phenomenon into macro signals). Once that particular outcome has been 'selected' for, the probability of the other outcome quickly becomes vanishingly small very fast. Thus, all future outcomes are that outcome, even though the underlying reality is still that fully entangled state.
Photons (and other objects that seem to behave 'quantumly') do not seem subject to this (and thus we can use them to understand quantum behavior) because they have particular properties wherein their behavior is not as affected by these macroscopic drop-offs quite as badly.
My confusion is that this is just Many Worlds / the Schrödinger equation, and Quantum Darwinism doesn't seem to add anything that wasn't already obvious by inspection. But after reading more, I think that's kind of the point? It's ultimately just an argument for why the Schrödinger equation produces these locally classical regions, plus a bunch of overly flowery prose and dressing up in invented jargon that can mostly be ignored. I think the article failed to ignore that second part and ended up confused.
Many worlds is just the claim that the Schrödinger equation holds in actuality.
I don't think QD makes decisions 'uniquely'. Take this quote,
> The step from the epistemic (“I have evidence of |π17〉”.) to ontic (“The system is in the state |π17〉”.) is then an extrapolation justified by the nature of ρSℰ: Observers who detected evidence consistent with |π17〉 will continue to detect data consistent with |π17〉 when they intercept additional fragments of ℰ. So, while the other branches may be in principle present, observers will perceive only data consistent with the branch to which they got attached by the very first measurement. Other observers that have independently “looked at” S will agree.
Emphasis on "the other branches may be in principle present" — the claim at least in this paper can't be that all branches agree, just that they agree locally.
Without defining what 'actuality' is, then there's no meaning to 'the Schrodinger equation holds in actuality'. In their own way, all interpretations of quantum mechanics claim the Schrodinger equation holds in 'actuality'. Some view probability and potential as a claim on 'actuality'. Others dismiss this and instead view probability skeptically and claim it must thus be true. This is an ontological argument, not a scientific one.
If you don't like the word 'actuality', I can rephrase. Many worlds is just the claim that physical reality materially evolves in correspondence with the Schrödinger equation.
If you want to quibble over what it means for something to be material, go ahead, but unless you can tie it to some specific claim being made about QD I don't really know what the exercise gets you.
reply