On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 5:47:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> The computation is the same independently of the substrate of its >>> implementation. For example, you could run the same program on a computer >>> based on vacuum tubes or transistors, with the same output. >>> >>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> *> **That's the case for the conventional-Platonistic definition of >> computing. Not the case for computing with a material-intrinsic semantics.* >> > > So according to "material-intrinsic semantics" the 4 that a vacuum tube > computer produces when it adds 2+2 is not the same 4 that a transistor > computer produces when it adds 2+2; and the 4 a white man gets when he adds > 2+2 does not mean the same thing as the 4 a black man gets when he adds > 2+2, and there is a male 4 when a man makes the addition and a female 4 > when a woman does. So how can a serious person consider anything as > monumentally silly as a computational theory involving "material-intrinsic > semantics"? > > John K Clark >
If there is a program in C vs. a program in Python (vs. Java, etc.) that produce the same I/O, which uses the least energy? Or a man vs. a woman that adds. :) Material-intrinsic semantics are a UCNC conferences topic. Check them out. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6082ee76-085b-4e33-82fc-b7a872c55b15%40googlegroups.com.
