Why we should be careful about who we call hackers
First, it was Y2K. Now, it’s proofing the security of our technology against quantum computing (well covered by Karmela Padavic-Callaghan). Both challenges continue to add evidence that ignorance, wilful or otherwise, isn’t bliss in cyberland (25 April, p 10).
However, perhaps one change we can make is to demote the language we assign to criminals and agents of hostile nation states and stop calling them “hackers”. Marcus Ranum’s 2005 essay “The 6 Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security” made it clear that they are undeserving of the title to the extent that our admiration weakens our defences. I still lament the term being used for our adversaries when 鈥� as the saying goes 鈥� some of my best friends are hackers.
Hackers, of the ethical variety, bridge the air gap between responsible cyber and criminality with the simple morality of consent. If we are to rise above the fear, uncertainty and doubt that characterise too much of our communication of good and poor cyber practices, perhaps we can eliminate the false glamour that perpetuates 20 years later.
From virtual possibility to a physical reality
On the subject of the pluriverse, the delayed-choice experiment may point to a remarkable conclusion: conscious realisation is itself a real fact, and it is this fact that fixes physical reality by converting virtual possibility into determinate actuality (21 March, p 28).
Before we know which path a particle takes in the double-slit experiment, it appears to exist only as a range of possibilities, not as one settled event. But once an observer consciously knows which slit the particle passed through, the situation changes. A formerly virtual possibility becomes a realised fact. One history is fixed; the alternatives are no longer part of experienced reality. Conscious realisation plays a constructive role in the passage from the possible to the actual.
Further, if human beings make pre-existing block universes real through their choices, this may shed light on the problems of free will and consciousness. It may also explain retrocausality and action at a distance, not as strange causal mechanisms, but as a natural consequence of selecting one block universe, with a pre-existing, consistent past and future, rather than another.
Preserving information for future generations
Matthew Stevens rightly points out that, in a few millennia’s time, it will be difficult to read nanometric information etched into glass, given that, by then, the necessary reading technologies will probably have been forgotten. But there is a very simple solution: engrave th information onto the glass, but then carve the instructions for building the necessary readers onto stone slabs, aiming for the simplest possible version of the reader and including plenty of explanatory illustrations. If hieroglyphics have survived to the present day, that information will also reach future generations (Letters, 21 March).
Experiencing the senses in your mind
Your correspondent Erik Foxcroft would be interested to find out if other people can imagine smells or tastes. I can do so vividly: if I can’t get to sleep, I do a mental walk through my old school, where each room (classroom, lab, gym, storeroom) has a different smell. Or I imagine an all-you-can-eat buffet where I taste all my favourite foods in turn. The sensations feel absolutely real (Letters, 25 April).
Marvelling at the wildlife of Chernobyl
Thank you for your excellent article about Chernobyl. I was involved with a safety case for a new building at Sellafield in 1986 when the accident happened. I always wanted to visit, and in 2018 I was lucky enough to visit the site and see all the most interesting aspects as described by your reporter Matthew Sparkes. I was amazed by the wildlife and the complete return to nature (18 April, p 28).
Another view on the inside of a black hole
Keith Joshi mentions the idea of “lazy evaluation” in a simulation of the universe. I have a similar hypothesis about the interior of black holes. Since such interiors are outside of what we can ever observe, it could be that physics there is undefined. There’s no need for it (Letters, 25 April).
Household robots could make great gardeners
Regarding the piece on household butlers, the cost of garden maintenance is so high around here that I would love a robot to do it. At least with simple things like mowing. It could also spray weeds as is done in agriculture, but only on the lawn and not in the flower beds, where it would need to dig them out (21 March, p 36).
War, what is it good for? (and when did it start?)
The chimpanzee civil war has been held to show war as a pre-human activity, but is civil war the same thing as war? It may be argued that war defined the start of civilisation: one group of people reacting to another in opposition and possibly cooperating with others. Surely civilisation was when humans realised they were part of humankind and had to interact. History starts with writing, but the first writing was often about wars. Battles also have to be distinguished from war, too. Throughout the animal world, species, as well as communities, have battled over territory (18 April, p 5).
On the importance of keeping an open mind
Concerning David Robson’s piece “Why is it so hard to change your mind?”: like many people, I’m extremely open minded (25 April, p 17). I’m willing to listen to anyone’s point of view, even though I know they’re wrong!
For the record
C. H. Johnson was playing rugby (25 April, p 46)