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

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, 11:48 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

If you can show they exist you will likely be able to claim a Nobel prize.
After all, one was just given for the work showing there are not.


> > 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.
>

This is why you need to take the 23 minutes to understand the video, or
read this article on the same topic at your own pace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermin%27s_device

Without that background, however, you won't be in a position to appreciate
aren't why the quantum statistics are impossible to explain -- absent
adding some extraordinary assumptions about reality (spooky action,  many
worlds, etc.)

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251108/aa2e1b3d/attachment.htm>