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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:05 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

* > 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.*


*Yeah but don't expect me to defend Superdeterminism**! I think it's just
about the most idiotic idea conceivable. *

* >> 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.*
>

*Yes that happened in some cases, but in other cases there was no
measurement error.  Things were just weird. *

>
* > In some cases, it was eventually discovered that there had been
> a hidden dependence*


*Yes that happened in some cases, but in other cases there was no hidden
dependency. Things were just weird. And that was experimentally proven by
Alain Aspect, John  Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger, and that's why they
received the Nobel prize for physics in 2022.*

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

*Maybe somebody will come up with a better idea tomorrow but so far only
two explanations have been found for the bizarre outcome of certain
experiments, just two:*

*1) Superdeterminism, which is idiotic.*
*2) Many Worlds, which is slightly less idiotic. *

*There is one thing we know for certain, whatever the true nature of
reality turns out to be it's going to be counterintuitive and weird, very
very weird.    *

*> there could have been ahidden dependence going way back, before the data
> available could attest. *


*It doesn't matter how far back that hidden dependency goes, go infinitely
far if you like, but it won't help. As John Bell proved when he derived his
inequality, if we ignore superdeterminism (as we should!) then the only way
that hidden factors, that is to say something that particles can access but
we cannot, could produce the experimental results that we see is if it
turns out that mathematicians have been wrong for millennia and that 2/3 is
actually larger than 3/4. Do you think that is likely? *

*John K Clark*



>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251110/abc5f08f/attachment.htm>