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

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:29 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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.

No, no such thing is.  It doesn't matter if you go by strict/maximum
superdeterminism or my "superdeterminism lite": neither theory
involves any conscious entity with that sort of malicious intent.

> 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."

Problem is, "fool us" means there is conscious intent.  That's the
standard definition: "fool" here is a verb, therefore, something is
doing the action upon "us", the noun, and "fool" involves conscious
intent by definition.

It's the definition of "fool us", not the definition of
"superdeterminism", that's causing the issue here.

> 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).

Are you saying that superdeterminism is a many-world theory?  I
thought that the former was explicitly not, and is an alternative to,
the latter set.

> 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.

No such anticipation is needed.  Conditions can be set up so that if a
human brain (or the alternatives) does its thing later, the results
will be in a certain way, but that does not require anticipation of
any specific actor doing that exact thing.

It's like if I produce weighted dice, that will almost always come out
with a 1 and a 6.  If a later observer comes along, sees the dice,
declares that they must be fair and independent, and keeps rolling
7...I did not specifically anticipate that, or any, observer.  Nor did
I arrange to make a fool out of that particular observer.  That
observer may have been born after I made those dice - indeed, possibly
after I forgot all about them, migrated off of Earth (supposing the
observer is born on Earth), et cetera.  I have no animus toward nor
knowledge of that observer.  So, to say that I specifically made those
dice to make a fool of that observer is demonstrably incorrect.  Nor
did I produce any sign saying that these dice are fair; the only one
assuming they ever were fair is that observer.

> 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.

Some things just are, with no "how" or "why" - at least, none that we
can currently explain.  Just because we can't explain it right now,
doesn't mean that it isn't.

How did the speed of light in our universe come to be what it is?  And
yet we can measure it, and confirm that it is that value.

Why does the gravitational constant have the value that it does?  And
yet we can measure it, and confirm that it is that value.

How is it that radioactive decay follows a logarithmic spread rather
than linear?  Why is it that, if half the particles in a sample decay
in time X, only half of the rest will decay in a further interval of
time X?  If the particles are independent of one another, how do the
undecayed particles know that half of their kin have decayed so they
should have a lower chance of decaying?  (The answer may have
something to do with survivor's bias, but that doesn't explain how
they got on a logarithmic spread in the first place.)