The Physical Church-Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold
British Journal of Philosophy of Science 62 (4):733-769 (forthcoming)
| Abstract | This article defends a modest version of the Physical Church-Turing thesis (CT). Following an established recent trend, I distinguish between what I call Mathematical CT—the thesis supported by the original arguments for CT— and Physical CT. I then distinguish between bold formulations of Physical CT, according to which any physical process—anything doable by a physical system—is computable by a Turing machine, and modest formulations, according to which any function that is computable by a physical system is computable by a Turing machine. I argue that Bold Physical CT is not relevant to the epistemological concerns that motivate CT and hence not suitable as a physical analog of Mathematical CT. The correct physical analog of Mathematical CT is Modest Physical CT. I propose to explicate the notion of physical computability in terms of a usability constraint, according to which for a process to count as relevant to Physical CT, it must be usable by a finite observer to obtain the desired values of a function. Finally, I suggest that proposed counterexamples to Physical CT are still far from falsifying it because they have not been shown to satisfy the usability constraint | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesW. Aitken & J. A. Barrett (2010). A Note on the Physical Possibility of Transfinite Computation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (4):867-874.
Carol E. Cleland (1995). Effective Procedures and Computable Functions. Minds and Machines 5 (1):9-23.
Edwin J. Beggs, José Félix Costa & John V. Tucker (forthcoming). Physical Oracles: The Turing Machine and the Wheatstone Bridge. Studia Logica.
B. Jack Copeland & Oron Shagrir (2007). Physical Computation: How General Are Gandy's Principles for Mechanisms? Minds and Machines 17 (2).
Tim Button (2009). Sad Computers and Two Versions of the Church–Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):765-792.
Paolo Cotogno (2003). Hypercomputation and the Physical Church-Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):181-223.
Eli Dresner (2008). Turing-, Human- and Physical Computability: An Unasked Question. Minds and Machines 18 (3).
Itamar Pitowsky (2002). Quantum Speed-Up of Computations. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S168-S177.
Oron Shagrir & Itamar Pitowsky (2003). Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines 13 (1):87-101.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-12Total downloads43 ( #26,104 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,093 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
