In plain language discussions it is clear that "computation" is only one of many ways to arrive at an answer. I would suggest that anything that strays too far from that will become hopelessly confused. If my daughter has homework, and is supposed to compute the answer herself, then asking me is not what she is supposed to be doing, and no amount of trying to explain to the teacher that "all the universe is computation" not references to the informational change-states involved will persuade the teacher otherwise.
Is "ask dad" an algorithm? Maybe, depends on how exactly that works. Am I computing the answer? Maybe, depends on what I'm doing. But it should be clear that "asking dad" is not a means by which she "computes" the answer. On Jul 6, 2016 4:55 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote: > "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." > > The military industrial complex is much more affiliated with the former, > it seems to me. (That's not a for or an against.) That problem you > describe is one with humans, not with some particular approach to science. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > 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
