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

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 1:05 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 12:28 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 10:14 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> Please stop trying to claim that superposition means the universe
> >> takes conscious, intelligent action.  It does not mean that.
> >
> > I'm not claiming that. It is an implication of superdeterminism that the
> universe actively works to thwart any attempt to catch it.
>
> You say you aren't claiming that, and then in literally the next
> sentence you claim that.  (And that claim of yours is, once again,
> false.)
>

It's not my claim. It is the direct implication of superdeterminism as I
then went on to explain and show why it follows directly.

If you think I have made an error then address how I am mistaken. That is
how rational arguments work.



> It is getting increasingly difficult to discern your argument from one
> made in simple bad faith.
>
> A further sign of possible bad faith on your part is that you
> repeatedly attack a strawman: despite my explicit declarations that
> superdeterminism - at least, as I use the term - is not some sort of
> animism, your counterexamples declare that I mean that something
> inanimate (photons, the universe, et al) "knows" stuff and consciously
> acts on it.
>
> (For instance, that it deliberately attempts to fool you.  It's
> inanimate.  The only entity in the loop capable of fooling you is you.
> The data is what it is; the measurements are what they are.
> Interpretation - and potentially coming to the wrong conclusion - is
> entirely up to you.)
>
> Try stating your objection without that declaration, and you might get
> closer to understanding the position I am actually favoring.
>

Superdeterminism is a hidden variables theory. One where the hidden
variables are assigned their values at the time the particles are created.
Do you agree with this much of the standard definition of superdeterminism?

If so, then I would pose this challenge: by what mechanism are they
assigned? How come they are assigned in a way that will anticipate the
manner in which they will later be measured, when that decision may be made
in a way seemingly causally disconnected from the assignment of the hidden
variables? And why are they assigned in such a way that happens to leave us
with the false impression that it can't be any normal hidden variable
theory -- the mechanism, whatever it may be, must somehow
anticipate/already know future events it has no right to know at the time
and place the mechanism activates.




> If your reply to this once again asserts that superdeterminism means
> that inanimate things "know" things and consciously act on that
> knowledge, then I'm going to have to ask ExiMod to step in, because at
> that point you will have proven that you are arguing in bad faith.


I searched this entire thread. The only person to have used the term
"consciously" to refer to superdeterminism has been you. Perhaps you should
report yourself to ExiMod for acting in bad faith.

Jason


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20251013/8474d2ab/attachment.htm>