Orders of Magnitude in Science Communication

Behold, the onion peels of the universe — different orders of magnitude:

…and just let them sink in for a moment. (If an existential crisis arises, then some Rick & Morty may help.)

Then ask some questions:

• At which levels do we relate most of our day-to-day experiences?
• At which levels does most scientific knowledge lie?
• At which levels do current scientific ambitions lie?

If you’d have asked these questions centuries ago, they may have all been answered very tightly around to the “human” order of magnitude, the further back in time you go. Put another way, I’m hypothesizing that as human knowledge and science has progressed, so has our understanding of various orders of magnitude.

So let’s assume this is true: As knowledge of the world increases, so does our understanding of larger and smaller orders of magnitude.

What does this mean for describing systems?

A Starting Postulate

Unlike previous explorations, I don’t yet have a collection of resources to turn to to deduce an answer. But in the domain of science the question seems to be an important one, related in some way to the idea of abstraction.

Let’s untangle this a bit more by assuming this postulate: There is a primary order of magnitude at which a system is anchored.

A Thought Experiment: Danish Pastries

Pretend that you’ve just seen a Danish pastry, and are now craving it.

That craving is likely not caused by underlying quarks, bosons, or individual neurons (let’s call this the “subtext”), but rather by an entire neural network tugging you in the direction of that pastry.

In the outward direction (let’s call this “context”), maybe a larger system of pastry advertisements influenced you to want that pastry. But surely it wasn’t the solar system that inspired you to crave that pastry, nor was it the universe.

Imagine these as hilarious defenses in court: “It wasn’t my fault, judge… the solar system made me steal that pastry!” or the quantum defense, “I swear, judge, my bosons made me do it!”

Some Conclusions

From this thought experiment, perhaps we can dubiously confirm our postulate, and also reach some other dubious conclusions about describing scientific systems:

1. Context has less causal effect the further outward you stretch from the anchor point.
2. Subtext has less causal effect the further inward you stretch from the anchor point.
3. Thus orders of magnitude matter, but only within a tight range of magnitudes.

Curveball

But… What if the sun implodes and the solar system is destroyed? Or a large meteorite hits Earth? Or Yellowstone’s caldera erupts? Does context have more causal effect than we’ve concluded?

Time for some Rick & Morty.