Unifying Science Through Computation: Reflections on Computability and Physics

  • Edwin J. Beggs
  • José Félix Costa
  • John V. Tucker
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 24)

Abstract

Many activities of a contemporary working scientist involve the idea of the unity of science. There are countless examples where the ideas and methods of one subject find application in another. There are subjects that comfortably straddle the border between disciplines. There are problems that can only be tackled by multidisciplinary approaches. Science is a loose federation of diverse intellectual, experimental and material communities and cultures. However, these cultures are strong. In this paper we reflect upon an area of research that is attracting the attention of computer scientists, mathematicians, physicists and philosophers: the relationship between theories of computation and physical systems. There are intriguing questions about the computability of physics, and the physical foundations of computability, that can set the agenda for a new subject, and that will not go away. Research is in an early phase of its development, but has considerable potential and ambition. First, we will argue that concepts of computability theory have a natural place in physical descriptions. We will look at incomputability and (1) the idea that computers “exist” in Nature, (2) models of physical systems and notions of prediction, and (3) hypercomputation. We will reflect upon computability and physics as an example of work crossing the frontiers of two disciplines, introducing new questions and ways of argument in physics, and enabling a reappraisal of computers and computation. We will also notice the social phenomenon of suspicion and resistance, as the theories are unbalanced by their encounter with one another.

Keywords

Computability Hypercomputation Nature Oracle Predictability 

References

  1. Beggs, Edwin J., José Félix Costa, Bruno Loff, and John V. Tucker. 2007. Computational complexity with experiments as oracles. Proceedings Royal Society Series A 464: 2777–2801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beggs, Edwin J., José Félix Costa, Bruno Loff, and John V. Tucker. 2008a. The complexity of measurement in classical physics. In Theory and applications of models of computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4978, eds. M. Agrawal, D. Du, Z. Duan, and A. Li, 20–30. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Beggs, Edwin J., José Félix Costa, and John V. Tucker. 2008b. Oracles and advice as measurements. In Unconventional computing 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5204, eds. C.S. Calude et al. 33–50. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. Computations via experiments with kinematic systems. Research Report 4.04, Department of Mathematics, University of Wales Swansea, March 2004 or Technical Report 5-2004, Department of Computer Science, University of Wales Swansea, March 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. 2006. Embedding infinitely parallel computation in Newtonian kinematics. Applied Mathematics and Computation 178: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. 2007a. Can Newtonian systems, bounded in space, time, mass and energy compute all functions? Theoretical Computer Science 371: 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. 2007b. Experimental computation of real numbers by Newtonian machines. Proceedings Royal Society Series A 463: 1541–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. 2008. Programming experimental procedures for Newtonian kinematic machines. In Computability in Europe, Athens, 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5028, eds. A. Beckmann, C. Dimitracopoulos, and B. Lowe, 52–66. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bowles, M.D. 1996. U.S. technological enthusiasm and British technological skepticism in the age of the analog brain. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 18(4): 5–15.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, S. Barry. 1999. Clockwork or turing universe?—remarks on causal determinism and computability. In Models and computability. London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, vol. 259, eds. S.B. Cooper, and J.K. Truss, 63–116. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, S. Barry, and Piergiorgio Odifreddi. 2003. Incomputability in nature. In Computability and models, eds. S. Barry Cooper, and Sergei S. Goncharov, 137–160. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connes, Alain, André Lichnerowicz, and Marcel Paul Schützenberger. 2000. Triangle of thoughts, American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, Martin. 2004. The myth of hypercomputation. In Alan turing: life and legacy of a great thinker, ed. Christof Teuscher, 195–212. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, David. 1997. The fabric of reality. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  15. Etesi, G., and I. Németi. 2002. Non-turing computations via Malament-Hogarth space-times. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 41: 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenstad, Jens E. 1980. General recursion theory. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Fenstad, Jens E. 2001. Computability theory: structure or algorithms. In Reflections: a collection of essays in honor of solomon feferman.Google Scholar
  18. Fredkin, E., and Toffoli, T,. 1982. Conservative Logic. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21: 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerver, Joseph L. 1984. A possible model for a singularity without collisions in the five body problem. Journal of Differential Equations 52(1): 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodstein, Reuben L. 1944. On the restricted ordinal theorem. Logic 9: 33–41.Google Scholar
  21. Graça, Daniel, and José Félix Costa. 2003. Analog computers and recursive functions over the reals. Journal of Complexity 19(5): 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grosser, Morton. 1962/1979. The discovery of Neptune, New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, Edward. 2000. Cosmology, the science of the universe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, Rogers. 1968. Theory of recursive functions and effective computation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Hawking, Stephen W. 1975. Particle creation by black holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics 43: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawking, Stephen W. 2005. Information loss in black holes. Physics Reviews D 72: 084013–084013.4.Google Scholar
  27. Hawkins, Gerald S. 1964. Stonehenge decoded. Nature 202: 1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heims, S.J. 1980. John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: from mathematics to the technologies of life and death. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Hinman, Peter G. 1978. Recursion-theoretic hierarchies, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Holst, P.A. 1996. Svein Rosseland and the Oslo analyser. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 18(4): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoyle, Fred. 1972. From stonehenge to modern cosmology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  32. Hoyle, Fred. 1977. On stonehenge. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  33. Killian, Joe, and Hava T. Siegelmann. 1986. The dynamic universality of sigmoidal neural nets. Information and Computation 128(1): 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaku, Michio. 1994. Hyperspace, a scientific odyssey through the 10th dimension. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kreisel, Georg. 1970. Church’s Thesis: a kind of reducibility axiom for constructive mathematics. In Proceedings of the summer conference at Buffalo N. Y., eds. A. Kino, J. Myhill, and R.E. V̇esley, 121–150. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  36. Langley, Pat, Herbert Simon, Gary L. Bradshaw, and Jan M. Zytkow. 1997. Scientific Discovery, Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes Anchor.Google Scholar
  37. Mather, J.N., and R. McGehee. 1975. Solutions of the collinear four body problem which become unbounded in finite time. Dynamical systems theory and applications, Lecture Notes in Physics 38: 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCulloch, W.S., and W. Pitts. 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore, C. 1991. Generalized shifts: unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems. Nonlinearity 4: 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newham, C.A. 2000. The astronomical significance of stonehenge. Coats and Parker Ltd (first published in 1972).Google Scholar
  41. Nyce, J.M. 1994. Nature’s machine: mimesis, the analog computer and the rhetoric of technology. In Computing with biological metaphors, ed. R. Paton, 414–23. London/New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Odifreddi, P. 1992. Classical recursion theory I. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Odifreddi, P. 1999. Classical recursion theory II. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor’s new mind. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Penrose, Roger. 1994. Shadows of the mind. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Penrose, Roger, Abmer Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking. 1997. The large, the small, and the human mind, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The Mangle of practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pollack, J. 1987. On connectionist models of natural language processing. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  49. Pour-El, Marian B. 1974. Abstract computability and its relations to the general purpose analog computer. Transactions American Mathematical Society 199: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pour-El, Marian B., and I. Richards. 1979. A computable ordinary differential equation which possesses no computable solution. American Mathematical Logic 17: 61–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pour-El, Marian B., and I. Richards. 1981. The wave equation with computable initial data such that its unique solution is not computable. Advances in Mathematics 39: 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pour-El, Marian B., and I. Richards. 1982. Noncomputability in models of physical phenomena. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21(6/7): 553–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Priestley, M. 2008. Logic and the development of programming languages, 1930–1975. PhD Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  54. Shannon, Claude. 1941. Mathematical theory of the differential analyzer. Journal of Mathematics and Physics 20: 337–354.Google Scholar
  55. Siegelmann, Hava T. 1999. Neural networks and analog computation: beyond the turing limit. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  56. Siegelmann, Hava T., and Eduardo Sontag. 1994. Analog computation via neural networks. Theoretical Computer Science 131(2): 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Siegelmann, Hava T. 1995. Computation beyond the turing limit. Science 268(5210): 545–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, Warren D. 2006. Church’s thesis meets the N-body problem. Applied Mathematics and Computation 178(1): 154–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stoltenberg-Hansen, Viggo, and John V. Tucker. 1995. Effective algebras. In Handbook of logic in computer science, vol IV: semantic modelling, eds. S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, 357–526. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tipler, Frank. 1997. The physics of immortality: modern cosmology, god and the ressurrection of the dead. Anchor.Google Scholar
  61. Tucker, John V., and Jeffrey I. Zucker. 2000. Computable functions and semicomputable sets on many sorted algebras. In Handbook of logic for computer science. Volume V: Logic Programming, eds. S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, 317–523. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tucker, John V., and Jeffrey I. Zucker. 2004. Abstract versus concrete computation on metric partial algebras. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 5(4): 611–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xia, Jeff. 1992. The existence of noncollision singularities in Newtonian systems. Annals of Mathematics 135(3): 411–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolfram, S. 2002. A new kind of science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
  65. Wolpert, D. 1991. A computationally universal field computer which is purely linear. Technical Report LA-UR-91-2937, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin J. Beggs
    • 1
  • José Félix Costa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • John V. Tucker
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Physical SciencesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade Técnica de LisboaLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.Centro de Matemática e Aplicações Fundamentais do Complexo InterdisciplinarUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations