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

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 1:32 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 3:46 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > It is proof of a multiverse for the following reason: unless one is
> willing to go so far as to admit there are effects without causes (which is
> magical thinking in my view) then the only way to explain how the correct
> answer ends up in the registers of a computer following a quantum
> computation is to admit the reality of the wave function, and all the
> intermediate steps of the computation.
>
> False dichotomy.  There are other ways to explain it.
>
> When you drop a ball into a funnel, the exit of which is pointed down,
> does the ball "actually" fall in all the ways other than through the
> funnel's exit?  No, it does not - unless the ball's atoms all
> quantum-teleport through the funnel's wall, an event so unlikely that
> it has yet to happen once in the universe - and no multiverse is
> needed to explain this.  Likewise in a quantum computer, the answer
> that comes out was so very likely (though this might only be formally
> provable in hindsight, with much more computation time than the
> quantum computer needed) that it's the only one that comes out.
>

Saying "it's probable" doesn't escape the implication of intermediate
states.

If I ask, "it's probable according to what?" your only justification for
why this outcome is probable than others is by pointing to the laws of QM.

In these very same laws which you appeal to thst tell us that physical
systems evolve continuously and deterministically over time.

You might counter: but not when we observe the system, that's when
something discontinuous and unpredictable happens!

But even if I grant you that, this only refocuses attention to those
intermediate unobserved states of the physical evolution of the quantum
computer, and all the steps of its computation.

For that final result which we measure with the correct answer, can only be
made the most probable outcome if all the intermediate steps and
multiplicity of simultaneous states exist -- short of postulating magic "it
just happens, it was the probable result" all while ignoring the very laws
that justify it being probable, the same laws that tell us of the
multiplicity of states for the unobserved system.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251011/c5c25540/attachment.htm>