Is computer science too powerful?

[Yil]

There are many things in pure math that completely disregard physics (cause logic is more fundamental than physics), and computers are originally designed to coop with pure math (some applications back then but nothing substantial) than do anything it's used today.

 

[osaka35]

physics is spoken in the language of math, so I'm not 100% sure why you would say math is more "powerful" than physics.

Computers operate on a binary system, not on imaginary or irrationals or fractions. just "on" switches and "off" switches with nothing in-between. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "powerful"

 

[RevPokemon]

physics is spoken in the language of math, so I'm not 100% sure why you would say math is more "powerful" than physics.

Computers operate on a binary system, not on imaginary or irrationals or fractions. just "on" switches and "off" switches with nothing in-between. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "powerful"

keep in mind yil asks a lot of "woke" philosophical questions like this.

 

[Yil]

physics is spoken in the language of math, so I'm not 100% sure why you would say math is more "powerful" than physics.

Computers operate on a binary system, not on imaginary or irrationals or fractions. just "on" switches and "off" switches with nothing in-between. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "powerful"

Lambda calculus. You can redefine the entire number system using it.

 

[osaka35]

Lambda calculus. You can redefine the entire number system using it.

ahh, so you're asking that since physics uses math and computers are based on math, therefore computers are more...powerful? Or more inherently capable than physics? I'm just trying to get your question correct before I attempt an answer lol

 

[Yil]

ahh, so you're asking that since physics uses math and computers are based on math, therefore computers are more...powerful? Or more inherently capable than physics? I'm just trying to get your question correct before I attempt an answer lol

Physics will be completely broken once the number system is broken where things can be rearranged into bazaar manner, if that would even continue to exist.

 

[osaka35]

Physics will be completely broken once the number system is broken where things can be rearranged into bazaar manner, if that would even continue to exist.

numbers are only representative. numbers are the language. physics is the reality. It's like me saying that flower over there is blue. Blue is the math, the nature of what the flower actually is would be physics. periwinkle may be a better word to use, but regardless of the word I use, the flower is going to stay the same. We use numbers to describe that reality in as specific terms as possible. The more accurate we are, the better the math. If the math is broken, then we're just sucking at communicating reality properly.

I say that to say this: No matter what you do with math, it can only ever be valid if it reflects reality/physics. If the physics is "broken", it's only because we're sucking at math somewhere along the way. When we say something "breaks the laws of physics", we actually mean "this breaks our current understanding of the laws of physics". If that makes sense.

 

[Yil]

numbers are only representative. numbers are the language. physics is the reality. It's like me saying that flower over there is blue. Blue is the math, the nature of what the flower actually is would be physics. periwinkle may be a better word to use, but regardless of the word I use, the flower is going to stay the same. We use numbers to describe that reality in as specific terms as possible. The more accurate we are, the better the math. If the math is broken, then we're just sucking at communicating reality properly.

I say that to say this: No matter what you do with math, it can only ever be valid if it reflects reality/physics. If the physics is "broken", it's only because we're sucking at math somewhere along the way. When we say something "breaks the laws of physics", we actually mean "this breaks our current understanding of the laws of physics". If that makes sense.

It might also be the other way around, where the reality is a strand of self-computing information. (A piece of program that does not require any physical structure, by which include anything quantum, to self-expand indefinitely)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@osaka35 New physics can be defined when number system is redefined, but not the other way around.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

All math possibility >> All physics possibility >> All physical possibility.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Physics is not capable of complete abstraction. Math is, and by extension computer science. And now we have something that can coop with it better than human.

 

[osaka35]

@osaka35 New physics can be defined when number system is redefined, but not the other way around.

Yes, exactly. Physics is reality. Math is our way of understanding it. We redefine numbers, we redefine our understanding of physics. Nothing we can do to actually redefine physics itself.

All math possibility >> All physics possibility >> All physical possibility.

Because math doesn't have to reflect reality. It could be hypothetical. It could be wrong.

Physics is not capable of complete abstraction. Math is, and by extension computer science. And now we have something that can coop with it better than human.

Ah. Physics is, while the mental can be abstract. But that abstraction isn't greater than reality, it's merely the interactions of limited perspectives of that reality. Reality is the one thing, but our interpretations of it can be endless

 

[DinohScene]

Computer science today is making dumb memes.
There's no science in memes, therefor computer science doesn't exist.

 

[Deleted User]

Computer science today is making dumb memes.
There's no science in memes, therefor computer science doesn't exist.

Case closed we don't need computers anymore because they make memes