The idea that there is such a thing as analogue computation is a classic oxymoron. The logic of the digital is computation and vice versa. (Now let's see how quickly this thread devolves.)
It's like saying that the early theory of osmotic exchange was there. Yes, but it was just too broad to have any scientific significance. Only when it was formulated under theories of molar concentration, osmotic pressure, etc it became an actual scientific topic ...
-
-
And one can say the say with e.g. atoms - but when you operationalise a variable like that, there is a sleight of hand going on; a sense in which you trim the edges off the original meaning of the concept, it's not entirely commensurable. Church-Turing thesis is somewhat circular
-
No what is a sleight of hand in this? The very definition of the concept is about trimming and calibration of the inferential nodes. Do you want a mallet to hammer in a needle into the furniture of the world or a small rubber hammer?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
...different from other models of exchange.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also: How much have we lost by declaring certain functions "uncomputable", is that scientific progress *as such*, distinct from the digital paradigm of thought?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.