How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2012, 15:22 (4604 days ago) @ xeno6696

In just the most recent "communications of the ACM," there are several debates highlighted that directly challenge the "Turing Machine," which for the uninitiated, is the basic theory underpinning how all computers work. Notions from biology and physics that view those systems as "computational machines" are chipping away at the Turing Machine, and while "displacement of the Turing Machine is likely a long way off," there is already an acceptance in the community that the theory probably has a shelf life. There are 3 paradigms outlined that can generate this challenge. The first is more or less "where we are now." 
> 
> (The are enumerated as:
> 1. reductionists
> 2. impressionists
> 3. remodelers
> 4. incomputability theorists
> )
> 
> Of course, our community is intimately connected with engineering, and in general, engineers don't have that much difficulty with throwing away something when a more practical solution is available. 
> 
> Again, the mere existence of these (often overlapping) areas that are predicted to challenge Turing's Universal Machine is a stark demonstration that scientific debate is alive and well, and is appears unhindered by most of what you seem to claim as "the drive for money."-Thanks for the explanation. Glad you are back to bug us and inform us. In the cancer research there is cheating. But time to therapy is money and one needs to follow the money to understand the motivations to cheat. By the way, how is your wife doing?