[Edu-sig] RE: [Tutor] Off topic musings

[Bruce Sass]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 alan.gauld@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> On 20 Aug 01, at 12:24, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Yes, there are many books and papers on programming correctness but
> > > few on the nature of information.
> >
> > I think the Philosophy of Language section in the library would be the
> > place to start.
>
> Now thats an interesting idea. Lateral thinking indeed.
> One previous poster suggester I read Godel, Escher, Bach
> which is going in the same direction, but doesn't really quite
> get there either...
>
> > Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, you are
> > interested in how information becomes data, gets manipulated, then
> > spit out as information again...
>
> Maybe. Really I'm just interested in what exactly a theoretical
> basis for software engineering would look like. The papes I was
> reading suggested that we may be reaching the point in CS
> research where we cannot progress further without an underlying
> theoretical base (like electrical theory underpins electronics which
> is in turn underpinned by atomic/molecular/ionic theory).
>
> But what is that theory? For instance we have Shannons stuff on
> the information content of bitstreams, WE have Date/Cobbs work
> on databases, we have Moore and Mealy's work on finite state
> automota and of course Boole's work on logic and binary
> arithmetic but there is little of anything unifying these things.

They are all representations of something in the real world,
communicated in a form that best fits a particular forum.  I would
expect a GUT of Programming to explain how ones takes an arbitrary
phenomena and represents it in an arbitrary computing language...

> Finding the unifying thread that ties together the various strands of
> CS in the same way electon theory pulls together everything in
> electronics is the big challenge in advancing CS.

...the problem is the translation from real to representation, it
depends on what aspects of the phenomena are deemed important enough
to translate, which depends on the forum the translation is targeted
at, and those involve value judgements.

The big difference between CS and physics is that with the latter
there is always a correct answer (within measurable limits of
accuracy and precision), value judgements are never correct except
within the confines of a particular belief system.  Would a GUToP be
like a theory in physics, or more like a philosophical treatise?

That is why I would go to the philosophy section, rather than the
science section, of the library if I was looking for relevant works. I
would further narrow my search down to PoL, because that is the branch
of philosophy concerned with the mechanics of representations and
communication of ideas -- which is exactly what computing languages
are all about.


- Bruce