> > Desigining computer is science, desigining silicon wafer is science, > writing new logical instruction set is science, Desgining and refining > the hardware is science. But all of it is Physics, Chemistry and maths.
But you are talking semantics purely, and an existential discussion is probably off the charts here, but your "science" can be reduced to the collective electrical pulses stirred in the human brain that may or may not be "real" to begin with. Seen the Matrix? Regardless of whether we use your definition of science as having its base in some generally available "pure" components, or Jenda's higher level components, the discussion is only important that can be held starting at some generally acceptable definition to the community participating in the discussion which in this case was directed at a mailing list where "computer science" no matter how corrupt your interpretation does have a generally accepted meaning which makes it possible to talk about a limited set of factors among a like thinking body of persons. To a majority of people on this list regardless of whether the two words "computer science" really relate to any underlying fundamental concepts, did have real meaning. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... > To explain > anything in this world you DO NOT need computers. In other words you can > solve any mystrey of the material world without ever using a computing > device. BUT you can not do it in absence of laws of physics, chemistry, > mathematics or biology. that proves the difference. Ironically if we are going to dissect the precise meaning of the words used then you have counter argued one of your prior points, to "explain" as used above would be to articulate in some manner (read: english, language) some sensible concept, so then what you end up with is that your laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all really based on the underlying language used to explain them, because the laws themselves would not "exist", or that is be "explainable", without the language and the commonly accepted definitions underlying it. To further this argument mathematics is more of a language or medium than an actual science, mathematics is only a language for defining "commonly observable" phenomenon, and what makes something commonly observable? Back to the existentialism... http://danconia.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
