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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 4:56 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

* >>> 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.*
>
>
>
> * > IIRC, they proved no dependencies that could have been generated after
> the experiment was set up and they were measuring things.*
>

 *Astronomers have done a lot better than that!! It has been proven
experimentally that if some sort of cosmic conspiracy had been generated
(superdeterminism) that conspiracy must be older than 7.8 billion years,
nearly 4 billion years older than the sun. The probability the observed
correlations were just a coincidence is one part in 100 billion billion. *

*Light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement*
<https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403>


> * >> 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.*
>
> * > On this we agree - at least, counterintuitive and weird from
> our current point of view. *


*I don't think human brains are wired up in a way that will ever allow them
to make quantum mechanics seem intuitively obvious, things might be
different for Mr. Jupiter Brain. *

*> I think it is likely that you ignore superdeterminism, and see weirdness
> resulting from trying to ignore it.*


*Occam's Razor is about an economy of assumptions NOT an economy of
results. The many worlds in the Many Worlds Theory are NOT an assumption,
they are a consequence of the one and only assumption that the theory
makes, Schrodinger's equation means what it says. As for competing ideas…*

*I can't prove that superdeterminism is wrong but as I've said before, I
can prove that superdeterminism is silly. The greater the violation of
Occam's razor that your theory needs to be true the sillier it is, and by
that metric it would be impossible to be sillier than superdeterminism.  *

*Objective collapse theory makes the additional assumption that
Schrodinger's equation is not quite right so even though there is no
experimental evidence that it is wrong an additional random term needs to
be added to it so that the equation is no longer deterministic, and it does
nothing but get rid of those pesky other worlds. This is my second favorite
quantum interpretation because right now experiments are underway to see if
they can find evidence for that new random term, I don't think they will
find anything but if they do then Many Worlds is definitely wrong. So much
for those who say Many Worlds is not scientific because it is not
falsifiable. *

*It's difficult to know what the Copenhagen interpretation is saying
because even among its fans they can't agree but some, probably a majority,
are saying there are two different sets of laws of physics, one set is for
matter that has been formed into  conscious scientists and the other set is
for matter that has been formed into things that are not conscious. Many
Worlds says there is only one set of physical laws. *

*And then we have David Bohm's quantum interpretation; he keeps
Schrodinger's equation but adds another equation for what he calls the
"pilot wave" which has some very unusual properties. The pilot
wave is extremely non-local, it has to take the state of the entire
universe into account in order to know if it should guide an electron
through the right slit or the left slit in an experiment, and influences
can be instantaneous, and distance does not diminish effects, so an
electron in the Andromeda galaxy might be just as important in making the
decision of which slit to go through as an electron that is only 1 foot
away. It seems to me that if that was true then you'd have to know
everything before you could know anything, and although we don't know
everything we do know some things. *

*Also, nobody has been able to write an equation for the pilot wave that is
compatible with Special Relativity as Paul Dirac did for Schrodinger's
equation a century ago. And **the pilot wave can affect an electron but an
electron cannot affect the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the
particle can NOT push back. This sort of one-way causation has never been
observed before. And the asymmetry means that matter is real (it always has
one definite position and velocity) but is fundamentally passive, matter is
guided by the pilot wave but matter is unable to influence the pilot wave.
Human Beings are made of matter so we are just puppets, the pilot
wave pulls the strings. Well OK… Technically we're marionettes not
puppets. *

*Bohm and his supporters argue that all of this additional byzantine
complexity is worth it because even though it abandons locality it
maintains realism, that is to say before a particle has been measured it
was in one and only one definite state.  **I disagree, I think that is far
too high a price to pay. At the end of the day all the pilot wave does is
provide a little arrow that points at a particle and says "this is the real
particle, ignore all others". This is why detractors of pilot wave theory
have called it "the disappearing worlds theory", they also call it "the
Many Worlds theory in denial". *

*And then we have by far the most popular quantum interpretation, "Shut Up
And Calculate" sometimes called "Quantum Bayesianism". And that's fine if
the only thing you're interested in is predicting what value you're going
to see on your voltmeter if an experiment is set up in a certain way. *

*  John K Clark *

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251111/7d87f916/attachment.htm>