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

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:16 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:18 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:48 AM BillK via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> Yesterday, when Kimi was asked to compare the Multiverse with
> Superdeterminism, it preferred the MWI option due to the severe problems
> posed by superdeterminism.
> >>
> >> Today, I never mentioned superdeterminism, but just asked Kimi to
> consider how unlikely the multiverse is, as in your comment above. Kimi
> agreed with you, but did not suggest superdeterminism as the alternative.
> Kimi discussed the problems with MWI and concluded that at present, we
> don't know how to solve the measurement problem. We await further research
> on this mystery.  :)
>
> I agree with that conclusion: we don't know for sure if it's MWI,
> superdeterminism, or something else.  The discussion was about what
> each of us finds more likely, and why.
>

Did you notice that the AI described superdeterminism as "conspiratorial?"
This seemed to be a main crux of our disagreement: any time I suggested
superdeterminism involved the universe conspiring against us, or operating
in a manner to fool us, you objected on the grounds that I was
ascribing conscious volition to the universe. I think Bill's conversation
shows this is not some kirk of my description of superdeterminism, but a
core part of superdeterminism.

But then when you say your version of superdeterminism doesn't require any
of this, that left me completely confused, as without that piece, it's not
superdeterminism, it's just ordinary determinism and local hidden variables.

I think to understand superdeterminism, one must understand the problem it
was invented to solve (that problem being the Bell inequality statistics).

Jason


>
> > I had a similar conversation with an AI on the topic of many-worlds. At
> the end of the conversation the AI was 99.99% sure many-worlds was correct:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i15TT76PMYlOdMO76O_TYPML2ocHrlzYDdj2fPkguH0/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > This either shows that many-worlds is most probably true, or that
> current AIs are so swayable that we shouldn't put much stock in what they
> say about controversial subjects.
>
> The latter.  Notice that one of your questions contains the assertion,
> "So MWI explains more, while assuming less, making it preferable by
> Occam's razor."  (Among other such statements in your questions.)  If
> you tell it that MWI is most likely true, it will usually conclude
> that MWI is most likely true.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251112/76ce0837/attachment.htm>