UC Davis

My dissertation provides a framework for understanding how various theories of physical computation, which are often taken to be alternatives, can be made compatible when we specify different questions targeted by the different accounts across the debate. In this project, I identify three questions: implementation (the relation between a computational structure and a physical system), interpretation (what computation the system performs), and individuation (what distinguishes computing systems from non-computing systems). I argue that the debate is often framed in terms of the individuation question, but that most accounts address either implementation or interpretation. A consequence of framing the debate in terms of the individuation question is that views that reference semantic content and views that do not end up looking like alternative ways to address physical computation. But I argue, semantic and non-semantic views are not alternative accounts of physical computation. Instead, they answer different questions that each address a different aspect of physical computation. I clearly distinguish between two questions: implementation and interpretation, and I argue that these questions are being answered by non-semantic and semantic accounts, respectively. Once I define these questions, I offer a framework that demonstrates how the different views are complimentary. In addition, I present a path forward for how to continue engaging with questions about physical computation with clearly articulated targets that can be addressed independently or cooperatively.