``Hence, we'll end up with at least 2 types of computation, anyway, the one called "living systems" versus the purely mechanical ... even if, in full reduction, they are fundamentally the same kind. So, we may as well allow the distinction now and see where it takes us. ''
When the result of a calculation is surprising, it is typical that people dig up analytical results to test against. Usually analytical results are very narrowly scoped and can't test the full capabilities of a calculating device. If they could there would be no need for the calculating device. In this situation it would be better if the theoreticians could participate in more of the implementation of the device or at least review a list of properties of the code that can be shown to be true. (And have confidence the properties were true.) The vernacular of "computation" puts the device implementation outside of the scope of the theoreticians. It's another set of people that do that, usually from an under-specified set of requirements. The division between the vernacular and the fancy-pants version of computation encourages underspecification. Conversely, having a higher level conception of computation can facilitate the engineers to move toward the science too. 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
