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

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:04 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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 think the problem here is that you are using the word "superdeterminism"
to mean something else (to refer to your own theory), rather than what is
conventionally understood to be meant by the word.

If you follow the standard definition of superdeterminism, then *something*
is operating to fool us. The statistics make it impossible for any ordinary
system of hidden variables to work, but if superdeterminism is true, then
then there really are hidden variables, but the assignment of these
variables operates in a manner that guarantees (however we may try to avoid
it) that we see statistics that make us believe it just couldn't possibly
be hidden variables. This is what John and I mean when we say that the
universe operates in a way to "fool us." Note this is in the standard
definition of superdeterminism that Google offered, and you seemed okay
with:

"a superdeterministic universe would ensure that the choice of measurement
setting and the outcome of that measurement are correlated"

I think to avoid confusion, you need a new name for the theory you believe
in, and for it to be fully formed in a manner that allows us to discuss it,
it needs to account for the violation of Bell inequalities. Standard local
hidden variables theories are ruled out by the violation of Bell
Inequalities, so to make a valid theory, this part must be
addressed/explained/accounted for.



> > 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.)
>

All quantum theories are many-worlds theories. It is just that some quantum
theories propose that all the other branches suddenly disappear (under
conditions they can neither define, nor test).


>
> 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.
>

Determinism, yes.

But photons having hidden variables assigned in a way that anticipates what
a human brain, or a radioactive source, or a computer generating digits of
sqrt(19) will be doing 10 light years away, no.

If you mean something in between these two things, you will need to specify
what exactly that is, and how hidden variables are selected to provide for
the 75% anti-correlation rates we observe.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251110/72095a4d/attachment.htm>