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

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 2:00 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 12:03 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 10:41 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> Fair.  It is the most common objection I hear to superdeterminism:
> >> "Free will obviously exists and is obviously incompatible with
> >> superdeterminism."
> >
> > Such blanket pronouncements require defining what one means by free
> will. What is it you are proposing will is free from?
>
> I was summarizing the objections as put to me.  It's on them to define
> "free will".
>
> >> I find superdeterminism to be simpler than MWI and the other
> >> explanations, which - to me -says that Occam's Razor points toward
> >> superdeterminism.
> >
> > Super-determinism is the least simple of all theories that have ever
> been proposed in the history of science. It requires continuous
> conspiratorial miracle interventions every time a scientist concocts and
> conducts an experiment trying to disprove it. It is worse than those who
> answer "God did it" for every question, because for the case of
> superdeterminism, it is equivalent to answering "God is doing it to fool us
> and give us a false impression of how reality really is."
>
> No such requirement or equivalent exists.  "Reality is this way.  You
> don't and can't know all the states that make up reality.  Any ideas
> that you come up with for how it came to be are your ideas, which may
> or may not be correct.  Reality doesn't owe you anything, but neither
> is it actively malicious."
>
> Claiming that such a conspiracy exists is akin to creationists' claims
> that evolution requires a similar conspiracy every time someone tries
> to prove that "God did it within the past 6,000 years".
>
> People can, will, and have put a lot of detail and thought into ideas
> that turn out to be wrong.  That doesn't make those ideas right, no
> matter how strenuously said people try to prove them.  (Neither does
> it inherently make them wrong.  Rather, the amount of effort by itself
> is simply irrelevant.  The evidence and testable hypotheses are far
> better guides to the truth.)
>


Then you just haven't fully thought through the consequences of
super-determinism.

Consider a Bell-Inequality proving style EPR test, where we have two
polarized photon filters that can be put in one of three positions (A, B,
and C) each at 120 degrees off rotation from each other. One is on Earth
and the other is on Pluto, and entangled photons are generated on Europa
and sent by laser to the detectors on Earth and Pluto.

Now I leave it to the people on Pluto to decide how to choose to set their
filter position for each photon, while on Earth, I choose to use the digits
of Pi in base 3. Somehow, the creator of the universe who set everything up
super-deterministically knew I would decide to use the digits of Pi, and so
arranged the properties of the photons such that when measured, I would see
the Bell inequalities exceeded, and match the expected statistics. Then, I
try to catch the universe in the act of deceiving me, and suddenly decide
to switch to using the digits of Euler's number in base 3 to set the
positions. Again, the creator of the universe anticipated this, it knew
exactly when I would change my mind, and how I would then choose to use e
to set the detector positions, and even though the photons were already in
flight, superdeterminisitically conspired to make sure I would still get
the expected correlations based on how I was now setting the dials
according to Euler's number. I could then switch to the sqrt(19)

Note -- Pi and e and sqrt(19) are not my ideas. They're part of math which
presumably has nothing to do with the unfolding of this experiment. Yet,
superdeterminists propose that something in the universe anticipated I
would use exactly those numbers, in that order. And would then show me
results which would lead me to believe the correlations were a result of
quantum mechanical laws, when they really weren't. It was a conspiracy by
the universe to fool us.

Finally, consider if I really confront the force working against me, and I
decide to take each value I measure, and feed it into a cryptographic hash
function (such as SHA-2) and use the output bits to decide to set the dial
positions. Now I am forcing reality itself to solve an ever more difficult
problem of pre-arranging itself to keep up with this continual processing
of new data. But reality knew I was going to do this, and peg it against
itself, and it still is able to account for this and solve the problem of
super-determining its own states in a way which nevertheless keeps up with
future super-determined states, even though this seems mathematically
impossible to compute a solution for such a situation.

No, superdeterminism is far worse than the claim of creationists.
Creationists never proposed anything near so crazy.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251012/d6704af9/attachment.htm>