The universe has no clothes

There's a funny progression that happens when you're trying to fix a stubborn bug in an application. First, you look for all the obvious places something could be wrong. Second, you look for all the non-obvious places something could be wrong. Third, you look for all the places something couldn't be wrong. That last step looks a lot like a descent into madness: you're thinking things like maybe the compiler is broken but only for my program, or maybe it's solar flares, or maybe the output is correct but I have a rare psychological condition where I hallucinate the wrong result. Forget it, this is all a bunch of nonsense! Nothing makes sense! Black is white! Up is down! The universe has no clothes!

That progression seems fairly common outside of computers too. You're looking for your keys, you start off looking where you usually leave them, then places you don't usually leave them, and then you completely lose touch with reality. You start searching in places you've already looked just in case the keys are moving behind your back. You search inside the pantry cupboards even though there's absolutely zero chance your keys are in there. You begin to wonder if a burglar has snuck in and stolen only your keys from your house. You've completely lost faith in the behaviour of keys and the laws of physics in general.

But it doesn't always have to be so dramatic. In many small ways we place our trust in systems to work for us and, when they do, we take them for granted. I expect my house to continue to keep out the rain and sun, to the point where I forget that is its main job. However, a tent is a great reminder that shelter from the elements is not something to take for granted in a dwelling. When the system starts breaking down, it stops being invisible and, often, starts being annoying. My computer doesn't always do what I want, and I find this very frustrating when it happens – all the more so because it usually does what I want, but not often enough for me to trust it.

Of course, that is nothing compared to a non-expert's interactions with a computer. For a user's interactions to be meaningful, they have to consider the computer to be a system that obeys rules and has some sense of internal logic and consistency. Often, that is not what they think. Why are you clicking randomly? Why did you open up a completely different application? Why are you typing the name of your file into Google? Why? Why?! "Well, I don't know. I just tried something." And, of course, if you do not believe the system you're using makes any sense, trying one thing is just as good as another. Why not pick at random?

I mentioned earlier the importance of intention, and how the opposite of intention is just doing things whether or not they actually connect with your goals. I think there is an important parallel here: you can't act with intention in a crazy mixed-up inverse with no rules, because you have no idea what actions will lead to what outcomes. Not understanding that relationship has the same effect as not considering it at all.

Conversely, the times when a system seems to have no rules, it's often just that you haven't understood what those rules are. Like it or not, the first step towards intention and purposeful action in that universe is learning to see its clothes.