<p>The question is misguided. An acceptable definition of &quot;computation&quot; does not specify a single instance of one computation, but a general way of performing a class of computations, as well as ways of building, composing and generally creating computations. Turing machines, recursive functions, λ-calculus, quantum computers, etc., these all specify a system for performing many different computations.</p>
<p>If you mean to suggest that we should be able to guess from a single (rather bizarre) example what the general underlying method is, then I would say that guesswork is not a reliable method of communication.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-14T13:52:24.830Z
Well say we generalize it to an abstract hill of infinite size and configurable shape. And abstract the rock to a infinite size and configurable shape. Now is it turing-complete?
MeltyButter
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-14T17:14:31.777Z
Please do so generalize it, write it up, do some work, and present the results. We  will be interested to see what you came up with. But until then, there's little value in pure speculation.
Andrej Bauer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-24T19:41:15.863Z
Possibly you can look at a similar question: does a turbulent flow perform computation? The answer appears to be "yes", at least for turbulent flows that evolve according to a somewhat different set of rules than the standard Navier-Stokes equations. [See article in *Quanta Magazine*](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-fluid-new-path-in-grand-math-challenge-20140224/). However, proving it involves doing a considerable amount of detailed mathematical computation, and not just philosophizing from your armchair.
Peter Shor 
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-13T16:41:59.033Z
2023-05-13T19:38:59.673Z
2023-05-13T19:38:59.673Z
Andrej Bauer
<p>Imagine a rock in the shape of a chessboard with pieces in a certain configuration.</p>
<p>Throw the rock down a particular hill. The hill is shaped in such a way that, given the correct throw, the chessboard-rock will be chipped and flinted in a deterministic way as it rolls and bounces down.</p>
<p>At the end of this very large, very specific hill, the rock has been &quot;carved&quot; by the hill into the shape of a sentence &quot;bishop to e4&quot;, which happens to be the &quot;best&quot; move.</p>
<p>Has the hill performed a computation corresponding to a chess algorithm?</p>
<p>And furthermore, are <em>all</em> rocks falling down hills performing <em>some</em> kind of computation, and is it only a matter of interpretation whether <em>every</em> falling rock could be said to be computing consciousness?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-13T15:46:43.297Z
I’m voting to close this question because it's not theoretical computer science; it's philosophy.
Peter Shor 
<philosophy>
Does a rock falling down a hill perform computation?
MeltyButter
# Does a rock falling down a hill perform computation?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-13)

Imagine a rock in the shape of a chessboard with pieces in a certain configuration.

Throw the rock down a particular hill. The hill is shaped in such a way that, given the correct throw, the chessboard-rock will be chipped and flinted in a deterministic way as it rolls and bounces down.

At the end of this very large, very specific hill, the rock has been "carved" by the hill into the shape of a sentence "bishop to e4", which happens to be the "best" move.

Has the hill performed a computation corresponding to a chess algorithm?

And furthermore, are *all* rocks falling down hills performing *some* kind of computation, and is it only a matter of interpretation whether *every* falling rock could be said to be computing consciousness?

**Tags:** philosophy
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I’m voting to close this question because it's not theoretical computer science; it's philosophy.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-05-13. Score: 1

The question is misguided. An acceptable definition of "computation" does not specify a single instance of one computation, but a general way of performing a class of computations, as well as ways of building, composing and generally creating computations. Turing machines, recursive functions, λ-calculus, quantum computers, etc., these all specify a system for performing many different computations.

If you mean to suggest that we should be able to guess from a single (rather bizarre) example what the general underlying method is, then I would say that guesswork is not a reliable method of communication.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well say we generalize it to an abstract hill of infinite size and configurable shape. And abstract the rock to a infinite size and configurable shape. Now is it turing-complete?  
> **username_2**: Please do so generalize it, write it up, do some work, and present the results. We  will be interested to see what you came up with. But until then, there's little value in pure speculation.  
> **username_1**: Possibly you can look at a similar question: does a turbulent flow perform computation? The answer appears to be "yes", at least for turbulent flows that evolve according to a somewhat different set of rules than the standard Navier-Stokes equations. [See article in *Quanta Magazine*](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-fluid-new-path-in-grand-math-challenge-20140224/). However, proving it involves doing a considerable amount of detailed mathematical computation, and not just philosophizing from your armchair.  

---

