> On 19 Jun 2019, at 12:42, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:04:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Jun 2019, at 15:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> In >> >> Embodied and disembodied computing at the Turing Centenary: >> Turing’s Titanic Machine? >> by S. Barry Cooper >> http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/pure/logic/computability/BarryTalks/titanic_CACM.pdf >> >> <http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/pure/logic/computability/BarryTalks/titanic_CACM.pdf> >> >> >> As Samson Abramsky puts it (private communication communication, 2011): >> “Turing took traditional mathematical objects, real numbers, functions, etc. >> as the things to be computed. In subsequent work in computer science, the >> view of computation has broadened enormously. In the work on concurrent >> processes, the behavior is the object of interest. There is indeed a lack of >> a clear-cut Church-Turing thesis in this wider sphere of >> computation—computation as interaction." >> >> Add "(embodied) experience" to "interaction". >> >> So there is a beyond-CT suggested in all of this. > > > With all my respect to Barry Cooper and Samson Abramski, what they show is > that there are other interesting notions, beyond computation. > > The provability notion is typically “beyond CT”, or beyond computation, but > they are Turing emulable, like all interaction-like notion of computation are > Turing emulable. > > And, yes, they are right, those notions does not admit a Church-Thesis. It is > just simpler to not call them computation. Those other notions does not > violate CT, and are often based on CT, more or less explicitly. > > Bruno > > > > > > Just as G.Strawson says "matter is a mystery”,
That is a good insight. I did not wait Mechanism to be suspicious that the notion of matter is nonsensical. > computation (what is it?) is a mystery, I don’t see why. On the contrary, it explains the explainable! > except in the certitude of the received doctrine of Church-Turing Thesis. On the contrary. Everyone agreed on all example of intuitively computable functions, and it admits an intuitively simple and informal definition: a function is computable if we can explain, with a finite list of words, how to compute it on any input, in a finite time. It just happens that we cannot defined “finite”, and then there has been the discovery of the universal machine, and the empirical discovery that all attempts to define formally the computable functions has always led to the same class of functions. Some people,like me (and Gödel) took many years to accept the high plausibility of CT. Of course, also, there is no certainty here. There is no certainty in any science. And CT is not a doctrine, it is a theory, unrefuted until now. Now, many confuse the notion of computation with some of its intensional variants, to claim that CT is refuted or unwarranted, but that is just ignorance. > > But "there are other interesting notions, beyond computation" just leads to > mysticism it seems, since what are these "other interesting notions"? What's > an example of one these? Truth, provability, knowledge, observable, relativize computations, etc. > > I know that neither you nor Cosmin will accept there is such a thing as > experience processing (with entities - experiences/qualia irreducible to > information/numbers - because it is unconventional computing, something it > seems you don't think exists (even though there is an annual conference of > it). Yes, and I have been invited to submit a paper, which I did. I have no problem with this. Unconventional computing does not contradict CT, no more than quantum computing. But they address problems which are not under the topic of CT, and emphasise special aspect of some type of computation, but all machines does that with the different modes of self-reference. Keep in mind that the machine’s phenomenologies, can be proved to be NON computable. Of course this used CT. In fact the whole interest of CT is that it permits to define and study the non computable. Without CT, no mathematician would say that the 10th problem of Hilbert has been solved (negatively). (The problem of finding a method to solve Diophantine equation). Almost all attribute of “codes” are provably non computable. Bruno > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73fc0684-b3ec-4a4f-b1c4-abab3ac63991%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73fc0684-b3ec-4a4f-b1c4-abab3ac63991%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/5B91195D-2F08-4816-9AD7-957C8B84C6B7%40ulb.ac.be.
