On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 5:47:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> The computation is the same independently of the substrate of its >>> implementation. For example, you could run the same program on a computer >>> based on vacuum tubes or transistors, with the same output. >>> >>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> *> **That's the case for the conventional-Platonistic definition of >> computing. Not the case for computing with a material-intrinsic semantics.* >> > > So according to "material-intrinsic semantics" the 4 that a vacuum tube > computer produces when it adds 2+2 is not the same 4 that a transistor > computer produces when it adds 2+2; and the 4 a white man gets when he adds > 2+2 does not mean the same thing as the 4 a black man gets when he adds > 2+2, and there is a male 4 when a man makes the addition and a female 4 > when a woman does. So how can a serious person consider anything as > monumentally silly as a computational theory involving "material-intrinsic > semantics"? > > John K Clark >
If there is a program in C vs. a program in Python (vs. Java, etc.) that produce the same I/O, which uses the least energy? Or a man vs. a woman that adds. :) Material-intrinsic semantics are a UCNC conferences topic. Check them out. @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/6082ee76-085b-4e33-82fc-b7a872c55b15%40googlegroups.com.
