[Noisebridge-discuss] Philosophy and Computer Language Question

[Joshua Juran]

On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Will Sargent wrote:

> CS can only model reality by simulation.  What it's really good at is
> concrete math, sets and category theory -- telling you what answers  
> are
> possible and which are not, which systems can be built and which  
> cannot,
> which operations are possible and which are not.  There's an  
> interesting
> paper that shows all computer programs are formal logic proofs, and  
> you can
> do fun things by breaking out of a restricted environment to  
> another --
> escaping into a wierd machine -- but ultimately it's always the  
> rules of
> the machine as defined by the chip.  Whatever world we define in  
> there is
> simulated, and isn't going to break out of the instruction pointer  
> of the
> CPU running it.

Although you can *simulate* a system where something breaks out.   
Examples include A-ha's Take On Me video and Six-Part Ricercar, the  
final dialogue from Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach.  But  
you won't see Alan Turing popping out of the pages of the book or  
pencil-sketch dude entering your room through the screen.  (Unless of  
course you're in some altered state.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_on_me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

I wrote a 68K emulator that allows emulated code to make (some)  
native system calls.  If you run it inside itself, then a system call  
issued at any level is ultimately fulfilled at the lowest level (if  
it isn't rejected as unsafe).  But it's not turtles all the way down  
-- it must eventually bottom out into an actual implementation.

http://www.metamage.com/code/v68k/

Josh