[ExI] Google’s Willow Quantum Chip: Proof of the Multiverse?

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 10:54 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Are you familiar with Mermin's Bell inequality experiment with the two detectors and three possible settings that can be set for each? If not (or if you want a refresher) here is a great (and short) account of it:
>
> https://youtu.be/0RiAxvb_qI4
>
> Understanding this experiment, and it's implications, will be necessary to understand my comments which follow below.

That video is almost half an hour.  To be fair, I've been waiting to
respond until I had time to watch it all in one sitting.  Life has
been uncooperative in that regard.

But I see in recent threads that the discussion has continued, and on
review it does not look like watching that video is necessary after
all, so in the interests of finishing this, I'll just summarize:

> Where things get strange, and very hard to explain, is when we play with the not-perfectly-correlates measurements. It is then we find (and can mathematically prove) that no pre-existing fixed set of information the particle took with it, and nor any function computed  on that data, can account for the observed facts that:
>
> A) when both devices are set to the same position they are 100% correlated
> B) when the devices are set to different positions they are only 25% correlated

In the examples I've looked at, in fact there are such pre-existing fixed sets.

> The "out" which superdeterminism takes is to say that the information the particle has (and took with it) contained information about what position the measurement switches would be in at each location at the time each particle is measured.
>
> But how did this information get there? If we set the positions by rolling a die, how are the particle's properties be tied to the outcome of this die roll, and why are it's statistics such to show us a 25% correlation, when it would be so much simpler to show a 33% correlation?

Simpler for whom or for what?  1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, and 1/1 * 1/1 = 1/1.