“Representation” and “reference” are other major trouble sources. In CS, each is a relationship between perfectly crisp software things; elsewhere, at least one end of the relationship is nebulous, in the world.
BCS discusses in this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USF1H70bRl0&frags=pl%2Cwn …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Mathematical logic was invented to eliminate all nebulosity; it conclusively failed. But computers are logic made flesh; as a consolation prize, we got the whole contemporary world out of logicism’s failure.
Gregory Chaitin’s delightful explanation: http://arxiv.org/html/nlin/0004007 …Show this thread -
Hardcore rationalism makes natural sense to people with computer science backgrounds. What would the world have to be like for rationalism to be true of it? It would need to conform perfectly to some set of rules—as software does, and practically nothing else can.Show this thread -
Given how utterly unlike reality logic is, it’s astonishing that we were able to build devices that conform to it so precisely. But, for many decades, we did devote most of the time of the smartest people in the world, plus trillions of dollars, to the effort.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You think these are instances of how science takes words, like “energy” and “power” and makes them specialized technical terms about specific quantities?
-
Yes; but there’s a specific sort of confusion that it causes in the case of computer science.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It frustates me to no end that Leibnitz doesn't just explain that a Monad is a monoid in the category of endofufnctors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’d say the confusion often runs entirely the other way around. Philosophy uses such weak and often bad models half the debate is hardly worth while.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Computer science recycles key philosophical terms with similar but different meanings. This causes systematic patterns of confusion for CS people thinking about philosophy.