Mathematical systems are outside the purview of physics. I can make true statements about infinite series and n-dimensional spaces all day long and never have to actually go point at any in the real world.
Except… the decidedly non-trivial exception to this rule is that whatever is actually implementing the mathematical reasoning is constrained by physics, whether it’s my brain or an i5 quad core.
Which is how I interpret the quote: the internal rules of abstract systems are not subject to physics, but the systems themselves sooner-or-later are. This is particularly relevant to programming because you can use non-physical abstractions if and only if you (or the people who wrote your tools) can explicitly represent them with physical processes.
My point was merely that some would consider the laws of Information Theory to be contained within “the laws of physics”, and programs cannot violate the laws of Information Theory.
Mathematical systems are outside the purview of physics. I can make true statements about infinite series and n-dimensional spaces all day long and never have to actually go point at any in the real world.
Except… the decidedly non-trivial exception to this rule is that whatever is actually implementing the mathematical reasoning is constrained by physics, whether it’s my brain or an i5 quad core.
Which is how I interpret the quote: the internal rules of abstract systems are not subject to physics, but the systems themselves sooner-or-later are. This is particularly relevant to programming because you can use non-physical abstractions if and only if you (or the people who wrote your tools) can explicitly represent them with physical processes.
My point was merely that some would consider the laws of Information Theory to be contained within “the laws of physics”, and programs cannot violate the laws of Information Theory.