4 ms·

> Everything affects everything else, and the correct questions to ask are how much? I don't think this is true. It's true that interstellar mass movements aff

> Everything affects everything else, and the correct questions to ask are how much? I don't think this is true. It's true that interstellar mass movements affect atomic motions on earth (the theory is well understood!), but it's not true that the movements affect, say, whether a particular computer program correctly meets a given spec: they're simply at different levels of explanation. One can't even imagine a theory that connects them. Maybe the interstellar motion could cause a bug in a particular computer, but we can consider a computer program's properties independent of a particular execution on a particular hardware. Furthermore, we can even test this using an ensemble of physical computers in the presence of error-producing radiation or whatever.

finite_jest 5y ago
This video by Veritasium on the unexpected effects of the cosmic rays is pretty interesting: https://odysee.com/@veritasium:f/how-distant-galaxies-mess-with-our-lives:3 https://odysee.com/@veritasium:f/how-distant-galaxies-mess-w....
- autokad 5y ago
  yeah, pretty funny how a cosmic ray can flip an election.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    and frustrating that ECC ram is not standard
perl4ever 5y ago
>One can't even imagine a theory that connects them. You are saying that atomic motions on earth cannot affect computer programs? Or are you saying that some atomic motions on earth cannot affect computer programs? If the latter, then how, theoretically, would you divide them into those that can and those that can't?
- dsizzle 5y ago
  The distinction I'm making is not between different types of atomic motions, but between properties of an algorithm (eg whether it meets a spec) and the physical instantiation of the algorithm running on some computer: ie software vs hardware. Hardware is subject to physics (cosmic rays etc), but software is not. There are lots of examples like this where the subject of interest occurs at different levels of emergence/analysis. I wouldn't be going down this tangent if the author didn't make such strong, overbroad statements that amount to "everything affects everything," and instead said something like "small, distant phenomena can have surprisingly non-negligible effects" or something, but I get the impression the author would argue against this change on fundamental (vs pedantic) grounds. For what it's worth, I like the story referenced in the blog's name https://eighteenthelephant.com/2013/08/02/167/ https://eighteenthelephant.com/2013/08/02/167/
  - r_parthasarathy 5y ago
    Your comment is a good one, and I don't have time for a long reply, but I'll point out that the motivation for my being a bit "overblown" is the unfortunate and very common tendency of many people to have a nonsensical "null hypothesis" that there's precisely zero effect of something on something else, as if it's at all sensible that there are zero connections. I work, for example, on microbiome research, and there's an unending stream of papers testing the "hypothesis" of "the gut microbiome affects X" rather than "what's the magnitude of the effect of the gut microbiome on X". I'm writing quickly, but hopefully this makes sense. Glad you like the blog name, by the way!
    - dsizzle 5y ago
      Thanks for the reply. I would be interested in your longer reply, if you get the chance! I get where you're coming from now that you mention the microbiome. That similarly reminds me of headlines like "antidepressants alter the brain," specifically variations that imply something groundbreaking; on some level it IS impressive that physical effects can be observed, but on another, it's almost trivially true that it affects the brain, because where else do thoughts originate? In fact, speaking of depression, there's probably studies exactly like what you described where depression is X. I think this could be usefully tied back to the software/hardware distinction I raised. Some might say that, in a lot of cases, depression is due to faults in "software" -- negative thinking, assuming the worst, etc, -- or at least is better treated as though it were. This is opposed to faults in "hardware" -- insufficient production of serotonin, or whatever (and I'm sure there cases where this is the best explanation/treatment). So maybe a certain microbiome state is like a computer running on the Mars rover where its hardware is subjected to fault-inducing radiation? The software/hardware distinction probably isn't as clean in the brain compared to our silicon-based computers! We know so little in this area that it probably does make sense to proceed as though everything affects everything, as you say -- but I also think it's important to allow that it may not.

finite_jest 5y ago

This video by Veritasium on the unexpected effects of the cosmic rays is pretty interesting: https://odysee.com/@veritasium:f/how-distant-galaxies-mess-with-our-lives:3 https://odysee.com/@veritasium:f/how-distant-galaxies-mess-w....

autokad 5y ago
yeah, pretty funny how a cosmic ray can flip an election.
- smegger001 5y ago
  and frustrating that ECC ram is not standard

perl4ever 5y ago

>One can't even imagine a theory that connects them. You are saying that atomic motions on earth cannot affect computer programs? Or are you saying that some atomic motions on earth cannot affect computer programs? If the latter, then how, theoretically, would you divide them into those that can and those that can't?

dsizzle 5y ago
The distinction I'm making is not between different types of atomic motions, but between properties of an algorithm (eg whether it meets a spec) and the physical instantiation of the algorithm running on some computer: ie software vs hardware. Hardware is subject to physics (cosmic rays etc), but software is not. There are lots of examples like this where the subject of interest occurs at different levels of emergence/analysis. I wouldn't be going down this tangent if the author didn't make such strong, overbroad statements that amount to "everything affects everything," and instead said something like "small, distant phenomena can have surprisingly non-negligible effects" or something, but I get the impression the author would argue against this change on fundamental (vs pedantic) grounds. For what it's worth, I like the story referenced in the blog's name https://eighteenthelephant.com/2013/08/02/167/ https://eighteenthelephant.com/2013/08/02/167/
- r_parthasarathy 5y ago
  Your comment is a good one, and I don't have time for a long reply, but I'll point out that the motivation for my being a bit "overblown" is the unfortunate and very common tendency of many people to have a nonsensical "null hypothesis" that there's precisely zero effect of something on something else, as if it's at all sensible that there are zero connections. I work, for example, on microbiome research, and there's an unending stream of papers testing the "hypothesis" of "the gut microbiome affects X" rather than "what's the magnitude of the effect of the gut microbiome on X". I'm writing quickly, but hopefully this makes sense. Glad you like the blog name, by the way!
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Thanks for the reply. I would be interested in your longer reply, if you get the chance! I get where you're coming from now that you mention the microbiome. That similarly reminds me of headlines like "antidepressants alter the brain," specifically variations that imply something groundbreaking; on some level it IS impressive that physical effects can be observed, but on another, it's almost trivially true that it affects the brain, because where else do thoughts originate? In fact, speaking of depression, there's probably studies exactly like what you described where depression is X. I think this could be usefully tied back to the software/hardware distinction I raised. Some might say that, in a lot of cases, depression is due to faults in "software" -- negative thinking, assuming the worst, etc, -- or at least is better treated as though it were. This is opposed to faults in "hardware" -- insufficient production of serotonin, or whatever (and I'm sure there cases where this is the best explanation/treatment). So maybe a certain microbiome state is like a computer running on the Mars rover where its hardware is subjected to fault-inducing radiation? The software/hardware distinction probably isn't as clean in the brain compared to our silicon-based computers! We know so little in this area that it probably does make sense to proceed as though everything affects everything, as you say -- but I also think it's important to allow that it may not.