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

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:37 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:29 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?"
>
> I checked again, and neither "superdeterminism" nor "conspiratorial"
> appear in the conversation at
> https://www.kimi.com/share/19a73bad-87d2-8674-8000-000039699934 that
> Bill posted.
>
> Your conversation had a bunch of loaded questions, as I pointed out,
> so it's irrelevant if they appeared there.
>
> > I think Bill's conversation shows this is not some kirk of my
> description of superdeterminism, but a core part of superdeterminism.
>
> As superdeterminism is not mentioned at all in that conversation, this
> conclusion does not follow from that particular data.
>

I was referring to Bill's original conversation with the AI on
superdeterminism:

https://www.kimi.com/share/19a6fcce-a8a2-8623-8000-0000e0a140f6

E.g.:

   - 1. It Appears to Undermine Science Itself
   This is the core objection. If experimenters' choices are pre-determined
   by hidden variables, then science loses its ability to discover truth. As
   physicists Shimony, Horne, and Clauser argued in 1976, superdeterminism
   would allow a "conspiracy" where nature always arranges itself to produce
   results that look like quantum mechanics, regardless of the actual
   underlying laws

   - Critics argue superdeterminism requires the universe's initial
   conditions to be suspiciously fine-tuned to produce the exact correlations
   we observe, making it seem like a "conspiracy theory"

   - Most physicists prefer to accept "spooky action at a distance" rather
   than live in a universe where every experimental result might be a cosmic
   conspiracy.

   - Superdeterminism solves Bell's theorem by accepting conspiratorial
   correlations - It claims our "free" measurement choices are secretly
   predetermined to align with hidden quantum states from the Big Bang. This
   is often criticized as making science impossible, since any experimental
   result could be dismissed as a cosmic setup .


 Jason

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251112/c05ef06a/attachment.htm>