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

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, 12:56 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 12:29 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, 11:59 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:22 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
> >> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> > On 14/10/2025 04:31, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >> > > The AI explanation failed to address the question. Under MWI, the
> >> > > worlds are separate after splitting, with no way to interact.  And
> >> > > yet, this MWI explanation for this requires them to interact.  By
> what
> >> > > means does the information get from one world to another after
> splitting?
> >> >
> >> > I don't claim to really understand this whole thing, but I was
> wondering
> >> > about how a half-silvered mirror can create two photons without
> >> > violating at least one conservation law, then realised that it
> doesn't,
> >> > in the original world (I don't know about the other, presumably the
> >> > photon existed in there all along, but not sure about that). After
> >> > Adrian's comment above, I'm now wondering how the entanglement happens
> >> > in the first place, if the two worlds can't interact?
> >> >
> >> > Not that I've ever understood what 'entanglement' actually means
> anyway.
> >>
> >> The superdeterministic explanation of entanglement is:
> >>
> >> * You have two particles.  (Or photons, or whatever.)
> >> * You know that one is in one state (spin or some other paired
> >> property), the other in the other, but you don't know which is which.
> >> * These two start out in contact with one another (so there is no
> >> problem "communicating" the state between them to start), but can be
> >> separated by arbitrarily large distances while you still don't know
> >> which one is in which state.
> >> * The moment you figure out which one is in one state, you instantly
> >> know the state of the other, no matter how far away it is.
> >> * This doesn't violate light speed/causality/etc. because the result
> >> of any action you take on this knowledge - and thus, the state of the
> >> universe where the other particle's state is known - can only
> >> propagate out at light speed from where and when you discovered the
> >> first one's state.
> >> * Not that that matters as much as it might seem, because the other
> >> one was always in the state that it was in.  You just didn't know.
> >
> >
> > But this explanation is insufficient, as the results you see will depend
> on how each of the two particles will later be measured.
>
> They may depend on how they are interacted with - including the
> specific means of measurement - to the same extent as if you knew the
> original state.
>
> But excluding those factors, they don't.  One particle is in one
> state, and will remain in that state unless and until interacted with.
> The other particle is likewise in the other state.
>
> > And they might be separated by vast distances by the time they are
> measured, and hence will not be able (in theory) to coordinate the
> measurement results they reflect.
>
> And don't have to.  See the above point on, "This doesn't violate...".
>
> > Superdeterminism, accordingly, requires that that foreknowledge
> regarding how each particle will eventually be measured, must be factored
> into the creation of that particle pair at the time it is formed.
>
> It does not.
>


How would you describe the difference between "determinism" and
"superdeterminism?"

>From all your writings on superdeterminism, you never seem to suggest any
difference between the two. Do you think they are equivalent?

If so, I think that sits at the root of our inability to effectively
communicate on this subject.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251108/0cf13306/attachment.htm>