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

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, 1:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 12:16 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Thank you!  Reading this article took much less than 23 minutes.
>

Wonderful!


> And...it reads like another "a priori definitions result in the cited
> conclusions", in other words an error in the experimental definition,
> without need of quantum mechanics to explain.


But can you succeed in defining any classical machine, holding any hidden
variables you desire, and running any function on that state of hidden
variables and the local state of the detector that reproduces this pattern
of statistics which we observe in actual experiments on entangled particles?

No one has succeeded this far. No one has found an error in Bell's math.

Bell proved mathematically that no such state of hidden variables
information can exist.

And moreover, experiments have been done to confirm these statistics exist
in nature.

This is why physicists have had to turn to extreme explanations (FTL
influences, many worlds, superdeterminism (not just regular determinism))
to account for these experimental results.

If it was just a bad paper, that made the trivial error of baking it's
conclusions into the assumptions, would the Nobel prize committee have
awarded a prize over it?

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/popular-information/





  To quote an example
> from the article:
>
> > For the improved device, the expected results are the following: if one
> detector is switched to setting 1 while the others are on setting 2, an odd
> number of red lights flash. If all three detectors are set to 1, an odd
> number of red light flashes never occurs.
>
> In other words, the definition of this device presupposes that the
> results are linked to, and depend on, the settings of the detectors
> (even if the detectors themselves are independent and can not interact
> - which means that something else, not specified in the definition, is
> doing this coordination).  So of course the results will depend on
> that, if it's set up so they'll depend on that.
>

So then, what is your explanation of the situation? How is it we get the
results we see?

Jason



> (I admit to editing the article to fix a typo in the quoted section:
> it said "detectors set" when the grammatically correct version is
> "detectors are set".)
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251108/ff2bc24f/attachment.htm>