Marcus points out - "One way to divide things up is between computational science and computer science, where the computational scientists use computers as tools to integrate experiment & theory in the natural sciences. Computer science considers the mathematics of computation itself."
Not to change the subject, but make an observation: It has always been my opinion that, had software development as a profession and practice been derived from the computational science of Ramon Lull and Leibniz instead of the computer science of Turing and Simon (Sciences of the Artificial) trillions of dollars would have been saved and computers might be human affirming instead of human subordinating. davew On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 02:27 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > On 07/06/2016 01:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > I'm not claiming nature _is_ computational in nature. But if it isn't we > > can't productively model nature at all. There is nothing to talk about if > > phenomenology has no predictable regularities. Pray to the Donald and hope > > for the best. > > You're leaping too far. Nature could be _near_ computational or > structurally analogous to computation. If that were the case, then we > can productively model nature up to that nearness, within that ball of > similarity. Much like the Cheeto Jesus simulates a human. > > -- > ☣ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
