When a person says "everything in the universe is connected", it is roughly as useful as saying "everyone has a phone". True. And completely useless — because the interesting question is always the refinement: with whom, how often, on what channel, at what bandwidth.
Over the last twenty years science has given concrete answers.
The network of physical links is measurable
Social networks have been studied as graphs since the 1950s, but serious measurement started in the 2000s with large-scale data. Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler (Harvard, NEJM, 2007–2010) showed: obesity, smoking, happiness, loneliness — all propagate across the social network up to three degrees of separation. "Friends of friends of my friends" affect your weight. The effect is small, but statistically robust.
No mysticism involved. Demonstrable transmission of behaviour through causal channels — conversation, joint activity, imitation. The network is real. It works. It can be measured.
Ecosystems — networks you can see
Robert May (Oxford, Nature, 1972) showed mathematically that an overly connected ecosystem is less stable, not more. Interconnection is not a virtue in itself. It can be productive or fragile. The character of the links matters more than their count.
A rainforest and a coral reef are both highly connected. A forest recovers from fire; a reef recovers from bleaching — barely. The difference lies in how the links are structured: which nodes are keystone, where there is redundancy, where there is not.
Saying "everything is connected" ignores the very structure that makes systems interesting. Connectivity is a parameter, not a property.
Quantum entanglement — a connection, but not that one
Entanglement is real (Delft 2015). It is nonlocal. But it does not transmit information in any macroscopic sense — a proven theorem (the no-communication theorem) rules out faster-than-light signalling.
In practice: two entangled particles at opposite ends of the Galaxy "know" about each other, but neither Alice nor Bob can use the "link" to pass a message. To transmit, you need a classical channel — light, signal, courier.
Citing entanglement as proof of "universal connectedness" in the sense of "we're all telepathically linked" misuses the concept. The connection is real, but not in the way people usually want.
What remains
Three layers of "connectedness" that actually work:
-
Social. Behaviour, health, mood propagate through real contact up to three degrees. Measurable. Practically useful — choosing your environment matters because it is a filter at the input.
-
Ecological. Ecosystems are linked by food chains, chemical cycles, migrations. Disturb one node — watch the cascade. Visible clearly in the loss of keystone species.
-
Informational-physical. If gravity is emergent (Verlinde), if the universe is a neural network (Vanchurin), then connectivity at the deep layer is the architecture of the universe, rather than its decoration. Speculation, but testable.
"Everything is connected" in the sense of "between any two points a path exists" — true, but trivial. "Everything is connected" in the sense of "there is bandwidth and transmission between them" — much more interesting, once you are willing to drop the magic and count the graph.