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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*>> Logic not magic allows us to conclude that there are only two
>> possibilities, an iterated sequence of "why" questions either goes on
>> forever or terminates in a brute fact, an event without a cause. I think
>> it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
>> processed intelligently.*
>>
>
> > *There's a distinction between an effect without a cause and a brute
> fact without a cause.*
>

*What is that distinction?  Even pure mathematics starts with brute
facts, axioms that have no proof. *


> *> Quantum computers producing answers without the intermediate steps of
> the computation "really existing" is of the former stranger kind: *effects*
> without a cause.*
>

*I think Many Worlds is the least bad quantum interpretation because at its
most fundamental level physics is totalitarian, that is to say everything
that is not forbidden by Schrodinger's Equation is mandatory. But why is
physics totalitarian? Because it's a brute fact. Probably.   *

*> I view Bell's inequalities being experimentally demonstrated as proof of
> MWI, or a refutation of special relativity. So given those results, special
> relativity -> many worlds.*
>

*It would be going too far to say Bell has proven the Many Worlds idea is
correct, it still has competitors. Bell's Inequality has been
experimentally proven to be false therefore if we ignore Superdeterminism,
as we should because it's idiotic, we know that the world cannot be
deterministic AND realistic AND local, at least one of those 3 things must
be false. Many Worlds is my favorite quantum interpretation and it is
deterministic and local but NOT realistic. The Pilot Wave idea is realistic
and deterministic but NOT local. The objective collapse interpretation (my
second favorite) is realistic and local but NOT deterministic. *

*I think Many Worlds is probably correct, I'd be willing to bet my house on
it but not my life, that's why I wouldn't be willing to perform a Quantum
Suicide Experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality> .*

*> Also, Copenhagen is MW in denial.*
>

*I've heard that said about the Pilot Wave Theory but not Copenhagen. Niels
Bohr was the father of the Copenhagen "interpretation" but it's not really
an interpretation because its fans can't agree even among themselves what
the hell it's saying.  Niels Bohr was a great scientist but a lousy
philosopher.*


*John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251012/20d5a3d9/attachment.htm>