[FRIAM] Antikythera

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

I have no idea what Marcus' intention was with that comment/link. But it does highlight that  the abstraction/idealization of "digits" and "computer" is a dangerous delusion. So I disagree completely with Steve. Calling the antikythera (or an orrery) a computer is the *correct* use of the term "computer" or "calculator" and calling an abstraction like a Turing machine or ascribing ontological status to √-1 is an abuse of the term.

We all know that computers are actual things out in the world, regardless of whether they crisp things down to discrete or exploit the full parallelism of the world. So, to me, it's the silly abuse of "analog" and "digital" in place of "continuous" vs. "discrete" that's most annoying. 

The dangerous tendency of humans to idealize and reify their own brain farts (e.g. Turing machines) is a separate issue entirely.

On 3/12/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> DRAM rates are remarkably low, even without error correction.   Like 1 in a trillion per hour.  
> https://tezzaron.com/media/soft_errors_1_1_secure.pdf
> At some point the analog device becomes a good-enough digital device.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] Antikythera
> 
> Is the antikythera anything "more than" a highly elaborated Orrery  ? I suppose the most egregious conflation for me is between map/model and "computer" in the sense of a device capable of universal computation. Orreries are elaborate maps (in the cartographic sense) of the grosser features of the solar system.   The mechanical-engineering aspects of the antikythera is certainly impressive but to call it a "computer" or even "calculator" misses the point I think. 
> 
> Analog(ue) vs Digital is it's own abuse of terms of course.   The former alludes to the one-to-one-correspondence nature of the elements of the model and a reduced description/apprehension of the parts of the system it models... an "analogy".   The latter is grounded in "counting on your fingers (and toes?)" which is abstracted in things like an abacus which "models" the components and aspects of a system as whole numbers (or fancier things like real or complex or even hypercomplex) numbers. IMO, until we started using "digital" computers to model abstract mathematical concepts beyond (possibly quite complex) arithmetic, they were nothing more than really fast, really complicated abacii?  
> 
> I suppose the term "computer" doesn't connote this form well, and I suppose there is a more apt term of art that people who philosophize more regularly about "computing" than I might use?

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ