2. Where do you draw the line between the physical and the
abstract?
My point has been that it is a difficult line to
draw.
Nonsense,
its quite easy to draw that lines. Courts just have trouble with it because
they make up their own nonsense definitions for things like "machine". Here,
let me explain it to you.
Physical things are made of atoms and molecules.
Machines are physical. So are people. So are robots, cars, lawn mowers,
microwaves, etc.
Abstract things are made of thoughts and ideas. Math
formulas are abstract. So is a poem. So is software.
You can write down a
representation of a math formula on a piece of paper, and the piece of paper is
physical. But its only a representation of the formula, nobody would say that
piece of paper *is* the formula. The formula exists, independent of any
representation, just waiting for someone to discover it and write it down. The
formula is part of the mathematical structure of the universe, but it's
completely abstract (mental).
Likewise, you can write down a poem on a piece
of paper, but the poem itself is just an arrangement of words and ideas that is
completely abstact (mental). The poem itself has no physical existence.
You
can write down a representation of a computer program on a piece of paper (or in
a series of electrical impulses in a computer memory, or a series of magnetic
regions of a hard drive). But that paper (or hard drive) is not the program,
its just a *representation* of the program. The program itself is completely
abstract (mental). It has no physical existence.
Hardware is physical, and
software is abstract (non-physical). Hardware is not mathematics, because
mathematics is abstract. But software IS both mathematics and abstract.
This
is not just my philosophical opinion, it is a fundamental truth about
mathematics and about software. Ask any graduate CS professor if you don't
believe me.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
