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

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 2:45 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 2:26 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And technically there are intermediate states, just not the ones
> you're thinking of.  By analogy to the funnel:
> * The times when the ball is falling through the funnel do exist.
> Likewise, intermediate moments where the quantum computer is forming
> an answer do exist.  (If they did not, the quantum computer would
> provide literally instantaneous answers, which it does not.  It is at
> least limited to the speed of light.)
> * This does not mean that the states where the ball falls through the
> funnel's walls, or the quantum computer fully contemplates the answers
> that will have been incorrect, existed.
>

If you study Shor's algorithm, you will find there is a step where the
quantum computer does indeed multiply a random number by all 2^(N/2)
possible numbers (where N is the number of qubits). All these superposed
results of the computation are then processed by a Fourier transform.

The important point being that you can't explain the workings of this
algorithm without this superposition of every possible product resulting
from every multiplication by a (N/2) bit number. Do each of these 2^(N/2)
superposed products exist? I don't see how one can deny they exist and
account for how the algorithm finishes with the correct result.


* These intermediate states were not the same as they would have been
> in a classical computer.


They are. Multiplication on the qubits is implemented the same as in a
classical computer. The difference is the input to the multiplication
function is a set of qubits, which are themselves in a superposed state
(representing all 2^(N/2) possible multiplicands).

Nothing in this implies that a classical
> computer's intermediate states existed.


If you review Shor's algorithm I think we will reach agreement on this
point.

Jason

  By analogy, the funnel - a
> static object that does not react to the world - does not consciously
> examine where the ball should go and choose that it will go out the
> exit.  Objections about the existence of a classical computer's
> intermediate states are irrelevant.
>
> Quite often when considering truly new technological bases, people try
> to understand it by making a detailed, step-by-step parallel to
> technology they understand, and then get frustrated or conclude the
> technology is not what it says it is when this analogy leads to
> seemingly impossible intermediate steps.  Consider a contemporary of
> the Wright brothers considering their flying machine as a hot air
> balloon, or a certain infamous early detraction that using rockets to
> get to orbit was impossible because they have nothing to push against.
>
> (Granted, there are a lot of scams out there that rely on "trust me,
> don't apply classical analysis".  When classical analysis predicts a
> failure, the new theory predicts a success, and independent
> experiments generally get successes, that's evidence it might not be a
> scam.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20251011/87408793/attachment-0001.htm>