When does a physical system compute?

Jul 11, 2014 by David Garner

Can physical systems from bacteria to black holes act as a computer? A University of York computer scientist and colleagues from the universities of Oxford and Leeds address this question in newly published research which seeks to define unconventional computational devices.

Professor Susan Stepney, of the Department of Computer Science at York and her fellow researchers propose a framework which which defines and distinguishes scientific experiments, physical computation, and engineering technology.

The evolving focus on the physical basis of computing has been prompted by a growing interest in non-standard computing systems including quantum and biological computers. But there is no consensus on how identify if a physical system is operating as a or not.

The new research, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A,introduces a formal framework that can be used to determine whether or not a physical system is performing a computation.

The researchers demonstrate how the abstract computational level interacts with the physical device level, drawing the comparison with the use of mathematical models to represent physical objects in experimental science.

This formulation allows a precise description of the similarities between experiments, computation, simulation, and technology, leading the researchers to conclude: physical computing is the use of a physical system to predict the outcome of an abstract evolution.

They give conditions that must be satisfied in order for computation to occur, and illustrate them with a range of non-standard computing scenarios. The framework also covers broader computing contexts, where there is no human computer user. They define the notion of a 'computational entity', and show the role it plays in defining when computing is taking place in physical systems.

Professor Stepney says: "Not every physical event is a computation, and for the first time we can distinguish which systems compute. In the future, this framework will enable the computational activity in biological systems and DNA to be precisely defined. We lay the foundations for computer science as a new natural science."

Explore further: The road to quantum computing

More information: Clare Horsman, Susan Stepney, Rob C. Wagner, and Viv Kendon. "When does a physical system compute?" Proc. R. Soc. A September 8, 2014 470 2169 20140182; DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2014.0182 1471-2946

Related Stories

The road to quantum computing

May 15, 2014

Anticipating the advent of the quantum computer, related mathematical methods already provide insight into conventional computer science.

D-Wave and predecessors: From simulated to quantum annealing

Jun 23, 2014

The D-Wave computer is currently the latest link of a long chain of computers designed for the solution of optimization problems. In what sense does it realize quantum computation? We describe the evolution of such computers ...

Recommended for you

Scientists succeed in linking two different quantum systems

2 hours ago

Physicists at the Universities of Bonn and Cambridge have succeeded in linking two completely different quantum systems to one another. In doing so, they have taken an important step forward on the way to a quantum computer. ...

First glimpse inside a macroscopic quantum state

Mar 27, 2015

In a recent study published in Physical Review Letters, the research group led by ICREA Prof at ICFO Morgan Mitchell has detected, for the first time, entanglement among individual photon pairs in a beam ...

Theory of the strong interaction verified

Mar 26, 2015

The fact that the neutron is slightly more massive than the proton is the reason why atomic nuclei have exactly those properties that make our world and ultimately our existence possible. Eighty years after ...

3,000 atoms entangled with a single photon

Mar 25, 2015

Physicists from MIT and the University of Belgrade have developed a new technique that can successfully entangle 3,000 atoms using only a single photon. The results, published today in the journal Nature, repres ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Jul 11, 2014
My, aren't we edging ever so closer to Aristotelian metaphysics....
not rated yet Jul 11, 2014
I find it a rather neat definition; while i would argue that all inanimate matter processes information about itself in its interactions, 'computation' implies additional versatility - the ability to process information otherwise irrelevant to itself.
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
not rated yet Jul 13, 2014
Does this mean that what was called a physical law or natural law is now seen as a computation?
Jul 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
not rated yet Jul 13, 2014
Too abstract to be of use outside of computer science. But I like how they find computation to be the reversal of testing. (E.g. testing learns the theory, computing use what is learned.)

@DoieaS: "Only physical systems designed with people for dedicated purpose compute" is pretty much that the paper concludes. Information processing is thus separated from computing. E.g. basic vision processing such as line perception has no flexible computing "theory" model.

I'll agree that much ado has been made of nothing, or rather originally a mysticism/magic idea. (Platonic dualism.) But more by mathematicians than theoretical physicists as such.
not rated yet Jul 13, 2014
Bah, humbug. (I'm going to go Scrooge on this one.)

They're saying this: it's computation if it can be used by people for computation.

If it can't, then it isn't.

That's not a breakthrough concept. It's not an original insight. It's not even correct.

Consider: if you have a candidate computational system - say, a living cell - and you can't figure out a way to get abstract computations out of it, then there's no computation gong on, according to the definition they're offering.

If, later on, you *do* manage to assign abstractions to the cell's processes and extract meaningful computations out of it, *then* it's a computer. But the cell didn't change. What changed was our interpretation of the cell.

Nature probably has tons of computational systems that are excluded if the definition hangs on utility to computer scientists. I think that's conceptually both stupid and near-sighted.
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.