Quantum computing doesn’t just need more qubits or fancier fridges — it needs a corrected order of operations

Change the sequence, change the outcome.

Desire → Enforce → Inhibit = scalable

Desire → Inhibit → Enforce = collapse that looks like progress

This is the fix sitting in plain sight.

Everyone keeps talking about scaling qubits (quantum bits that can be 0 and 1 at the same time), extending coherence (how long a qubit stays stable), reducing the noise (unwanted interference), etc. But barely anyone is pointing at the actual sequence problem that’s baked into the architecture. Because of that one ordering error, we’re wasting most of our energy fixing decay we invite by design.

The Core Issue Nobody Names

A qubit (a basic unit of quantum information) gets initialized (desired state), and right after that it’s immediately exposed to decoherence (loss of stability from the environment) — thermal noise (heat-based disruption), field instability (electromagnetic disruption), random energy hits, cross-talk, the works. Only after it starts degrading do we try to stabilize it with lasers, cryo, magnetic fields, error correction (methods to fix mistakes), etc.

That’s not a hardware limitation — that’s timing.

The Backwards Model We’re Using

Most of quantum computing is running on this hidden sequence:

Desire → Inhibit → Enforce

1. You set the state

2. You let the environment hit it

3. You try to salvage what’s left

That’s reactive. It assumes breakdown before protection.

It’s like planting a seed, letting a storm beat it up, and then trying to fix it. You’d plant it, support it, and then deal with the environment.

The Sequence That Actually Works

The structure needs to flip to:

Desire → Enforce → Inhibit

1. Initialize deliberately

2. Immediately reinforce and stabilize coherence

3. Only then allow readout, collapse, or constraints

This moves enforcement from emergency response to continuity by design.

There’s Evidence Already Pointing This Way

A few current breakthroughs are basically proving the point, even if they’re not calling it this:

• Superconducting qubit (a qubit made with super-cooled circuits) experiments showed you can stabilize coherence early by tuning interactions with noise-inducing defects rather than waiting for drift to happen.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62820-9

• In quantum sensing (using qubits to detect tiny signals), researchers enforced Bloch vector stability (the orientation of a qubit’s state) immediately after state prep using deterministic Hamiltonian control (energy-based steering of a system) — preserving coherence instead of chasing it later.

Source: https://www.azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=609

• Some groups are using autonomous error correction (self-stabilizing systems) — continuous, built-in stabilization via engineered dissipation so the system stays aligned instead of undergoing post-hoc fixes.

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09322

• Methods like REAS (technique to suppress how errors build up) reduce error accumulation (drift over time) during computation, shifting correction earlier in the sequence — closer to prevention than repair.

Source: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/yx9t-nctk

All of these nudge the architecture toward “enforce before inhibit,” even if nobody’s spelling that out yet.

Why the Order Matters

When enforcement trails inhibition:

• You fix damage instead of preserving intent

• 70 — 90% of resources go into chasing entropy

• Qubit lifespan shrinks before correction even starts

• Scaling hits a wall before it can stand

When enforcement follows desire directly:

• Coherence holds longer

• Error correction becomes lighter instead of dominant

• Noise is blocked instead of hunted

• Scaling stops being a math problem and becomes a physical possibility

This is not woo — it is system sequencing.

Ways to Explain It Without Overthinking

We initialize then let decoherence act before correction. That makes enforcement restorative instead of protective. If enforcement followed initialization immediately, we’d retain coherence instead of having to recover it.”

It’s like booting a system, letting it corrupt, and then patching it. It should be boot → stabilize → expose, not boot → expose → stabilize.