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

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 10:37 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 10:20 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> * > if we ignore Superdeterminism, as we should because it's idiotic*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * > Limited superdeterminism, yes.  "Strong" or "strict" superdeterminism
>> - that applies globally while still allowing free will (while helping
>> establish guidelines for how free will exists) - makes sense to me.*
>
>
> *Free will is an idea so bad it's not even wrong, it's 100% triple
> distilled extra-virgin gibberish. But that's not the reason I called super
> determinism idiotic, it's because a greater violation of Occam's Razor is
> impossible to imagine.  *
>

Only certain poor definitions are gibberish.

However, there are perfectly sensible and meaningful definitions of free
will. For example, the kind which is implied by computational
irreducibility (
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComputationalIrreducibility.html ).
Computational irreducibility applies to sufficiently complex processes,
which have no analytic solutions. For example, chaotic systems, or Turing
machines. In the general case, such systems cannot be predicted, they can
only be simulated and observed. For such systems, not even God could say
what they will do in advance (God would have to instantiate the being in
questioned to observe what it fact it chooses to do, just as we have no
shortcuts for predicting the outcome of a complex long-running computation,
we too, have to instantiate the program, and see what it does.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251012/93301383/attachment.htm>