Why Two?

What is so incredibly special about the number two?  Absolutely everything in computing is based on the number two.  Why?  What happens if we break our obsession with the number two?

The latest craze in computing is quantum computers.  My son, Sean, pointed to this article, which focuses on error detection and correction.  The issue is destruction through observation.  At the quantum level, observing (or the mere ability to observe) collapses the nearly infinite possible superposed states into a single, observable state.  IBM claims to have produced a way to sample state without collapsing it.  Interesting, to be sure.

To visualize the problem, imagine a discrete entity which has a particular attribute called "state."  Maybe in your mind you see a switch, in either the "on" or "off" position.  This is the classic "bit" (Binary information type).  It has two possible states (or values).  Let's call them "zero" for off and "one" for on.  For as long as there have been computers, there have been bits, and they have always been either zero or 1.  Put lots of them in a row, and you get a movie, like "Interstellar."  That movie, by the way, was terrific.

Now shift to quantum computing.  The information location (in your mind, perhaps still a picture of a switch), can have a state of zero, one, or (most importantly) both.  It's that last one that's unique to quantum computing.  "Both" represents the superposition of all possible states simultaneously.  We call this a "qubit."

So, here's my question, which I ponder aloud.  Why not "trits?"  A "trit" would be a trinary information type (proposed by a long parade of computer scientists over the years).  It could hold a value of zero, one, or two.  Zero could represent zero in a qubit, one could represent one, and two could represent "both."  How is a trit different than a qubit?  I'm having trouble coming up with a compelling argument why quantum computing could not be represented with trits.  In turn, trits are simple to represent in a bit configuration (i.e. within existing computers).  So, why would it not be possible to simulate a quantum computer within a classic computer?

And, for that matter, what's so doggon special about bits?  We have (most of us) ten fingers and ten toes.  One could make a colorable argument that natural selection points to decimal information type (dit).  Anybody who studied computer science in the 60s,  70s or 80s knows very well how to think in octal (base-8).  That's not exactly the same as having an irreducible information type with eight possibilities; but it shows that thinking in a number system other than decimal or binary is not only possible, but useful.  I bet I could come up with a dozen useful ways to compute things where bytes were eight trits; for example.  I bet you could come up with two dozen.  From a practical standpoint, you could think of it this way.  For ages, we have used magnetic media to store digital data.  We do this by recording a plus or minus charge in a specific, physical location on the disk or tape.  Why couldn't we record at least a plus, minus, or neither (zero)?  That would at least get us a trit at each location.

In radio telemetry, we have the concept of Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI).  It is measured, usually in decibels.  It can tell you how far away you are from a WiFi hub (assuming clear line of sight).  It can tell your position relative to a cell tower.  Why not use something similar with magnetic media?  The relative strength of a recorded piece of information could hold, say 10 or 20 values.  Seems unnecessarily restrictive to shackle ourselves to bits.