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

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 1:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:44 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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:
> >> > 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
>
> Which, as previously mentioned, starts with the assertion that "most
> physicists reject it".
>
> If you start a conversation with AI with such assertions, the AI's
> answer will generally agree with such assertions.  This does not help
> determine whether the assertions are true.
>

Regardless of an initial bias, the AI used similar descriptions as I did,
e.g. using the term "conspiratorial." Such a description was not provided
by Bill, the AI thought that was the best term to use to describe what the
theory implies.

Given that, do you consider my issues with superdeterminism to be
idiosyncratic? Or do you now see that this is a common critique people give
for rejecting superdeterminism?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251112/35febb1a/attachment.htm>