On Epistemically Useful Physical Computation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10707887 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Timothy Schmitz (University of California, Irvine, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 90 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 974-984 |
| Publication date | 2023-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8248 • E-ISSN: 1539-767X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/psa.2023.91 |
| OpenAlex | W4383724727 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 14 |
Piccinini’s usability constraint states that physical processes must have “physically constructible manifestation[s]” to be included in epistemically useful models of physical computation. But to determine what physical processes can be implemented in physical systems (as parts of computations), we must already know what physical processes can be implemented in physical systems (as parts of processes for constructing computing systems). We need additional assumptions about what qualifies as a building process. Piccinini implicitly assumes a classical computational understanding of executable processes, but this is an assumption imposed on physical theories and may artificially limit our picture of epistemically useful physical computation
Computation · Constraint (computer-aided design) · Executable · Human–computer interaction · Limit (mathematics) · Physical system · Process (computing) · Programming language · Usability · Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms · Computer Science · Mathematics · Philosophy and History of Science · Quantum Mechanics and Applications · Theoretical Computer Science
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |