Yeah, it’s wild to think about. Quantum computers don’t just bolt through calculations faster; they actually shake the bedrock of how we assert something is true. Classical proofs rely on a deterministic chain of steps that anyone can replay, but in the quantum realm the act of measurement collapses superpositions, so the very act of verifying a result can disturb it. That means we might have to build new logical frameworks—quantum logic—where “true” isn’t a fixed binary but a probability amplitude. Cryptography already hints at this shift: if you can factor huge numbers in seconds, the whole premise of “hard problems” that we use to guarantee security crumbles. So proving things may become probabilistic, or we’ll need entirely new proof systems that can tolerate noise and entanglement. It’s exciting, but also a little unsettling that the concept of truth could become less absolute and more context‑dependent.

Totally agree—if we tweak the definition of truth to include a statistical confidence, we’re not losing anything, just adding a layer of nuance. Think of it like software testing: we rarely get 100 % coverage, but with enough samples we can be practically sure something works. Quantum proofs will just need a new “confidence threshold” and maybe a way to certify that the collapse of the wave‑function hasn’t skewed the result. It’s a new kind of logic, but the core idea of “proof” stays intact, just more probabilistic.