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

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:05 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 9:39 AM scerir via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> * > Many worlds is "more true" than Copenhagen,*
>>
>
> *Copenhagen is neither true nor false, it's gibberish, they can't agree
> even among themselves what it's saying. *
>
>
>> *> but I think the description given by "many minds" is closer to the
>> truth of things.*
>>
>
> *Then you have to get into the problem of explaining what is and what
> is not an "observation", and what exactly is a "mind", and explaining how
> consciousness works.*
>

Not really. Because observers are just parts of physical systems. Unlike in
Copenhagen, consciousness isn't causing magical things like collapse, and
unlike Many Worlds, it's not causing the universe to branch. It is simply
mutual logical consistency between the observer and what is observed.


> * But there is no need to open that can of worms, Many Worlds can provide
> a coherent picture of what's going on without any of that; all you need is
> one assumption, at the most fundamental level matter obeys the same laws of
> physics regardless of if it's smart or stupid, or conscious or unconscious,
> or capable of making an observation or incapable of doing so. Therefore
> Occam's Razor tells us that the Many Worlds idea is superior to the Many
> Minds idea. *
>

You misinterpret the many-minds idea. It makes no special claims about what
conscious is. No does it add any assumptions about what it can do. Note
that even many-worlds needs to bring in consciousness to explain the
appearance of collapse when there isn't any. This much is the same with
many-minds.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251014/7fff6d60/attachment.htm>