On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 10:49:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 May 2019, at 20:26, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:56:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 6 May 2019, at 01:40, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> *The Church-Turing thesis is one of the most useless ideas ever invented.* >> >> >> >> You know that? >> > > > I just say that *CTT* (as it is acronymized) is a type of dogmatic theism > (like YHWH <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#YHWH>). > > > CT, or CTT if you prefer, is refutable. I am not sure YHWH is refutable, > although to prove this would require some thorough research. The 8 > universal machine hypostases are embedded in the neoplatonist zephirots, as > I have discovered recently. The neoplatonist christians, jews, and muslims > are very close to the (Löbian) universal machine. > > > > Better to ignore it. > > > Have you understood the simple proof of incompleteness that I gave? CTT > changes everything. It is the important part of Digital Mechanism, if only > to define “digital” in a mathematically precise way. > > We can ignore it, because we could just define “computable” by > Turing-computable, or lambda-calculable, … but this is dishonest, and makes > sense only if we assume CTT. > > Then, there are tuns of evidences for CT, and none against it. There are > evidence comping from the empirical reality, and very deep theoretical > evidences too. > > Bruno > > >
At least in 3 ways "against": 1. The domain of *interactions* (π calculus vs. λ calculus) exposes the limits of CTT. 2. The domain of *experiences *(aka *qualia*) does as well. 3. The domain of *materials*: Material computing exploits unconventional physical substrates and/or unconventional computational models to perform physical computation in a non-silicon and/or non-Turing paradigm. https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/nature/SpInspired/workshops/TEMC-2019-Tokyo/CallforAbstracts.html *The Interactive Nature of Computing:* *Refuting the Strong Church-Turing Thesis* Dina Goldin, Peter Wegner Brown University http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dgoldin/papers/strong-cct.pdf The classical view of computing positions computation as a closed-box transformation of inputs (rational numbers or finite strings) to outputs. According to the interactive view of computing, computation is an ongoing interactive process rather than a function-based transformation of an input to an output. Specifically, communication with the outside world happens during the computation, not before or after it. This approach radically changes our understanding of what is computation and how it is modeled. The acceptance of interaction as a new paradigm is hindered by the Strong Church-Turing Thesis (SCT), the widespread belief that Turing Machines (TMs) capture all computation, so models of computation more expressive than TMs are impossible. In this paper, we show that SCT reinterprets the original Church-Turing Thesis (CTT) in a way that Turing never intended; its commonly assumed equivalence to the original is a myth. We identify and analyze the historical reasons for the widespread belief in SCT. Only by accepting that it is false can we begin to adopt interaction as an alternative paradigm of computation. We present Persistent Turing Machines (PTMs), that extend TMs to capture sequential interaction. PTMs allow us to formulate the Sequential Interaction Thesis, going beyond the expressiveness of TMs and of the CTT. The paradigm shift to interaction provides an alternative understanding of the nature of computing that better reflects the services provided by today’s computing technology. *The Church-Turing Thesis: Breaking the Myth* Dina Goldin, Peter Wegner pdf @ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221652812_The_Church-Turing_Thesis_Breaking_the_Myth According to the interactive view of computation, communication happens during the computation, not before or after it. This approach, distinct from concurrency theory and the theory of computation, represents a paradigm shift that changes our understanding of what is computation and how it is modeled. Interaction machines extend Turing machines with interaction to capture the behavior of concurrent systems, promising to bridge these two fields. This promise is hindered by the widespread belief, incorrectly known as the Church-Turing thesis, that no model of computation more expressive than Turing machines can exist. Yet Turing’s original thesis only refers to the computation of functions and explicitly excludes other computational paradigms such as interaction. In this paper, we identify and analyze the historical reasons for this widespread belief. Only by accepting that it is false can we begin to properly investigate formal models of interaction machines. We conclude the paper by presenting one such model, Persistent Turing Machines (PTMs). PTMs capture sequential interaction, which is a limited form of concurrency; they allow us to formulate the Sequential Interaction Thesis, going beyond the expressiveness of Turing machines and of the Church-Turing thesis. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/14ca0e9c-ae99-457b-af35-64e2628c12cd%40googlegroups.com.
