Special Sciences and the Unity of Science pp 53-80 | Cite as

# Unifying Science Through Computation: Reflections on Computability and Physics

## 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

- 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
- Beggs, Edwin J., and John V. Tucker. 2006. Embedding infinitely parallel computation in Newtonian kinematics.
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*178: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Connes, Alain, André Lichnerowicz, and Marcel Paul Schützenberger. 2000.
*Triangle of thoughts*, American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar - 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 - Deutsch, David. 1997.
*The fabric of reality*. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar - Etesi, G., and I. Németi. 2002. Non-turing computations via Malament-Hogarth space-times.
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*41: 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fenstad, Jens E. 1980.
*General recursion theory*. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar - Fenstad, Jens E. 2001. Computability theory: structure or algorithms. In
*Reflections: a collection of essays in honor of solomon feferman*.Google Scholar - Fredkin, E., and Toffoli, T,. 1982. Conservative Logic.
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*21: 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Goodstein, Reuben L. 1944. On the restricted ordinal theorem.
*Logic*9: 33–41.Google Scholar - Graça, Daniel, and José Félix Costa. 2003. Analog computers and recursive functions over the reals.
*Journal of Complexity*19(5): 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Grosser, Morton. 1962/1979.
*The discovery of Neptune*, New York: Dover.Google Scholar - Harrison, Edward. 2000.
*Cosmology, the science of the universe*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Hartley, Rogers. 1968.
*Theory of recursive functions and effective computation*. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar - Hawking, Stephen W. 1975. Particle creation by black holes.
*Communications in Mathematical Physics*43: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hawking, Stephen W. 2005. Information loss in black holes.
*Physics Reviews D*72: 084013–084013.4.Google Scholar - Hawkins, Gerald S. 1964. Stonehenge decoded.
*Nature*202: 1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Heims, S.J. 1980.
*John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: from mathematics to the technologies of life and death*. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar - Hinman, Peter G. 1978.
*Recursion-theoretic hierarchies*, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar - Holst, P.A. 1996. Svein Rosseland and the Oslo analyser.
*IEEE Annals of the History of Computing*18(4): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hoyle, Fred. 1972.
*From stonehenge to modern cosmology*. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar - Hoyle, Fred. 1977.
*On stonehenge*. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar - Killian, Joe, and Hava T. Siegelmann. 1986. The dynamic universality of sigmoidal neural nets.
*Information and Computation*128(1): 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kaku, Michio. 1994.
*Hyperspace, a scientific odyssey through the 10th dimension*. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - 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 - Langley, Pat, Herbert Simon, Gary L. Bradshaw, and Jan M. Zytkow. 1997.
*Scientific Discovery, Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes*Anchor.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Moore, C. 1991. Generalized shifts: unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems.
*Nonlinearity*4: 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Newham, C.A. 2000.
*The astronomical significance of stonehenge*. Coats and Parker Ltd (first published in 1972).Google Scholar - 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 - Odifreddi, P. 1992.
*Classical recursion theory I*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar - Odifreddi, P. 1999.
*Classical recursion theory II*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar - Penrose, Roger. 1989.
*The Emperor’s new mind*. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Penrose, Roger. 1994.
*Shadows of the mind*. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - 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 - Pickering, Andrew. 1995.
*The Mangle of practice*. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar - Pollack, J. 1987.
*On connectionist models of natural language processing*. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Priestley, M. 2008.
*Logic and the development of programming languages, 1930–1975*. PhD Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar - Shannon, Claude. 1941. Mathematical theory of the differential analyzer.
*Journal of Mathematics and Physics*20: 337–354.Google Scholar - Siegelmann, Hava T. 1999.
*Neural networks and analog computation: beyond the turing limit*. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar - Siegelmann, Hava T., and Eduardo Sontag. 1994. Analog computation via neural networks.
*Theoretical Computer Science*131(2): 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Siegelmann, Hava T. 1995. Computation beyond the turing limit.
*Science*268(5210): 545–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Smith, Warren D. 2006. Church’s thesis meets the N-body problem.
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*178(1): 154–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Tipler, Frank. 1997.
*The physics of immortality: modern cosmology, god and the ressurrection of the dead*. Anchor.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Xia, Jeff. 1992. The existence of noncollision singularities in Newtonian systems.
*Annals of Mathematics*135(3): 411–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wolfram, S. 2002.
*A new kind of science*. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar - 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