4 ms·

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 physica

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.
perl4ever 5y ago
>strong, overbroad statements that amount to "everything affects everything," Perhaps the author did not mean to include abstractions as "things" in this context? I think you're discussing metaphysics and I don't see the connection to the article. I guess gravity doesn't affect faith, hope, or charity, but is that news, or actionable?
- dsizzle 5y ago
  First, I'd say it'd be an impoverished scientific worldview that excludes algorithms just because it's not a "thing" per se! But I could have just as well chosen a "thing"-ier example. For example, do quarks/the strong nuclear force affect the melting point of metals? There's probably a large "parameter space" where it literally has zero effect (in some part of parameter space atoms cease to exist, so it is a leaky abstraction!). But you can have melting phenomena in substrates that don't even have quarks. In fact, to bring it back to software, you can get melting phenomena in a pure algorithm like the Ising model. (I won't comment on what the author meant to include -- he responded to me earlier, and maybe he'll respond to this too.)
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    You sound like you are champing at the bit to get into the argument about whether there is a difference between rain in "reality" and rain in a simulation. All I have to say about the question of whether there is a difference between physics and metaphysics is to quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away". Which is really the same thing as Samuel Johnson kicking a stone: "I refute it thus." Whether or not you like the distinction, it remains. And while only the author can say what they intended, I didn't see any hint in the article of this topic.
    - dsizzle 5y ago
      Conversely you now seem focused on getting into an argument about simulations -- I gave an example of what I meant that doesn't involve simulations and is purely physical but you didn't comment on that. It's true I've focused on something that wasn't the meat of the original post -- but it's also true that I challenged a direct quote that is arguably the most profound claim in the post, and that's what I'm most interested in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

perl4ever 5y ago

>strong, overbroad statements that amount to "everything affects everything," Perhaps the author did not mean to include abstractions as "things" in this context? I think you're discussing metaphysics and I don't see the connection to the article. I guess gravity doesn't affect faith, hope, or charity, but is that news, or actionable?

dsizzle 5y ago
First, I'd say it'd be an impoverished scientific worldview that excludes algorithms just because it's not a "thing" per se! But I could have just as well chosen a "thing"-ier example. For example, do quarks/the strong nuclear force affect the melting point of metals? There's probably a large "parameter space" where it literally has zero effect (in some part of parameter space atoms cease to exist, so it is a leaky abstraction!). But you can have melting phenomena in substrates that don't even have quarks. In fact, to bring it back to software, you can get melting phenomena in a pure algorithm like the Ising model. (I won't comment on what the author meant to include -- he responded to me earlier, and maybe he'll respond to this too.)
- perl4ever 5y ago
  You sound like you are champing at the bit to get into the argument about whether there is a difference between rain in "reality" and rain in a simulation. All I have to say about the question of whether there is a difference between physics and metaphysics is to quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away". Which is really the same thing as Samuel Johnson kicking a stone: "I refute it thus." Whether or not you like the distinction, it remains. And while only the author can say what they intended, I didn't see any hint in the article of this topic.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Conversely you now seem focused on getting into an argument about simulations -- I gave an example of what I meant that doesn't involve simulations and is purely physical but you didn't comment on that. It's true I've focused on something that wasn't the meat of the original post -- but it's also true that I challenged a direct quote that is arguably the most profound claim in the post, and that's what I'm most interested in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯