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

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 9:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 1:05 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> > How would you describe the difference between "determinism" and "superdeterminism?"
>
> Determinism simply says that the present is uniquely caused by the past, that's it. It says nothing about initial conditions. Superdeterminism makes the additional assumption that out of the infinite number of states the past could've been in, it was actually in the one and only state that invalidates the scientific method and always makes fools of anybody who tries to investigate the fundamental nature of reality.

To say that it "always makes fools of" implies a conscious desire and
intent.  No such thing is in evidence.

One makes a fool of oneself if one insists that everything must be
only a certain way despite the evidence, but it is neither the
evidence nor reality itself that is doing the fool-making in this
scenario.

> I can't prove that Superdeterminism is wrong but I do think the probability of it being correct approaches zero. I am unable to think of a greater violation of Occam's Razor than Superdeterminism.

My thinking to the contrary goes thus:

I have investigated many cases where apparent independence produced
apparently contradictory results.

In some cases this was due to measurement error.

In some cases, it was eventually discovered that there had been a
hidden dependence (sometimes very obscured), usually going back before
the measurements in question began.

In some cases, no complete explanation has yet been found.

In no case was it completely ruled out that there could have been a
hidden dependence going way back, before the data available could
attest.  In some cases it seemed very unlikely, but there is a
difference between 1% and literally 0%, and sometimes this is a very
important difference.

Superdeterminism, or at least more-super-than-was-initially-believed
determinism, has thus been proven in some cases and not ruled out for
the rest.  Granted, it is possible that these cases might or might not
also have had multiple worlds involved, but they definitely had
more-super-than-was-initially-believed determinism.

Meanwhile, I am aware of no cases that prove multiple worlds without
reference to other solutions.  (Not "to the exclusion of", just that
MWI definitely existed whether or not other solutions also existed.)

Thus, more-super-than-was-initially-believed determinism exists at
least sometimes.  It seems to be a smaller leap to suspect that it
exists all the time, than to bring in another solution that has yet to
be conclusively demonstrated at least once.  Thus does Occam's Razor
suggest to me some form of at least mild superdeterminism.