4 ms·

So, this is a special purpose measurement tool with some automation, and it is not a computer. The way the word computer is understood today is an automatic, ge

So, this is a special purpose measurement tool with some automation, and it is not a computer. The way the word computer is understood today is an automatic, general purpose, stored program, electronic computer. The Antikythera mechanism, OTOH, is a complex, slightly automated, astrolabe. There is a very fundamental conceptual leap that the the astrolabe fails to make which is that all calculation can be done by a machine made of rather simple parts: switches. All of that said, I think the main reason that the Antikythera mechanism continues to be fascinating is that people have a very haughty view of the modern world and modern civilization, and they assume that people of the past were dullards (with zero evidence to support the view). I would wager that people have always been rather smart, but that we’ve merely become increasingly specialized over time.

Maursault 4y ago
> this is a special purpose measurement tool with some automation, and it is not a computer... The Antikythera mechanism, OTOH, is a complex, slightly automated, astrolabe. This is entirely wrong, and I don't know from where these ideas come. Nowhere in the article are the words "measurement" or "tool" used. The Antikythera mechanism does not take measurements. >> This little instrument not only predicted eclipses, but also calculated the phases of the moon, the movements of prominent stars and the revolutions of the planets – although not with accuracy. If the Antikythera mechanism does this, then it most definitely is a computer.
- BirAdam 4y ago
  It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. A reproduction of a thing for the purpose of study is a form of measurement enhancement. This is also a tool in the same manner a hammer or a computer is a tool. Special purpose computational tool, perhaps. A computer in the modern sense of the word, absolutely not. It is neither general purpose nor is it Turing complete. Please note that my initial reply stressed the point of a modern understanding and use of the word computer. If people wish to call this a mechanical computer it is more similar to a differential analyzer and yet still less capable. As human beings alive after the Second World War, we have far more terms with which to accurately categorize mathematical tools. Calling something more similar to an astrolabe a computer is akin to considering a hand saw and a circular saw the same thing.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. I don't see how either is a "tool of measurement." A ruler, scale, thermometer... these are tools for measurement. A simulation doesn't measure anything. The purpose of the mechanism is not to measure, it is to predict. It calculates, and that makes it a computer. > A reproduction of a thing for the purpose of study is a form of measurement enhancement. The issue is not with the use of tool, but I don't see how measurement enters into it. Measurement enhancement is not a general form of anything. A simulation is not for measuring, but for evaluating the effect of changes, for evaluating models, for tuning performance or safety, or for testing. Though measurements may be taken within the simulation, the simulation itself does not measure anything. > Special purpose computational tool, perhaps. A computer in the modern sense of the word, absolutely not. It is neither general purpose nor is it Turing complete. There is not a modern definition so much as there is context. You're defining computer to mean a programmable electronic device, I think you mean Turing machine, but this is a very specific meaning for a very general term. A computer is simply anyone or anything that computes. In fact, a computer can be anything from an abacus to a slide rule to a calculator (analog or digital) to even an automatic transmission. "Computer" does not necessarily mean anything electronic unless context dictates that it does. > Please note that my initial reply stressed the point of a modern understanding and use of the word computer. There are plenty of computers still waking around today that are not digital, and many of them we call computer scientists. > If people wish to call this a mechanical computer it is more similar to a differential analyzer and yet still less capable. As human beings alive after the Second World War, we have far more terms with which to accurately categorize mathematical tools. An astrolabe is not a computer, it is an instrument for making astronomical measurements. Instead, a computer is anything (or anyone) that computes, calculates, or reckons. We can be more specific by qualifying analog computer, or mechanical computer, or microcomputer, or even an accountant, but they are all computers. The category error is not necessary; only context matters here. > Calling something more similar to an astrolabe a computer is akin to considering a hand saw and a circular saw the same thing. That they are both tools does not mean that a screwdriver is also a wrench. They are both within the category of tools, but not all within the same category are of the same type. Here is another category error: Socrates is a man. I am a man. Therefore, I am Socrates. The issue is with your premise that all computers are Turing machines when, in fact, it is the opposite that is true. All sparrows are birds, not all birds are sparrows.
smitty1e 4y ago
It's an analog computer.
jacobolus 4y ago
This is an unhelpfully reductive definition of computer. The name computer used to mean people who compute things, but it’s also entirely reasonable to call a device which performs computations a “computer”, including tools like an astrolabe, slide rule, or nomogram. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
achrono 4y ago
Regardless of where this thread ends up on the definition of 'computer', I guess the more interesting question is: how close might these folks have been to building something like Babbage's engine? If you had to introduce programmability, memory etc. -- no matter in how rudimentary a way -- how (few) steps away is it from the existing design? I'm no computer scientist but it feels like the Greeks would surely have figured it out pretty quick (after one of them put in a PRD for a general arithmetic calculator of course).

Maursault 4y ago

> this is a special purpose measurement tool with some automation, and it is not a computer... The Antikythera mechanism, OTOH, is a complex, slightly automated, astrolabe. This is entirely wrong, and I don't know from where these ideas come. Nowhere in the article are the words "measurement" or "tool" used. The Antikythera mechanism does not take measurements. >> This little instrument not only predicted eclipses, but also calculated the phases of the moon, the movements of prominent stars and the revolutions of the planets – although not with accuracy. If the Antikythera mechanism does this, then it most definitely is a computer.

BirAdam 4y ago
It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. A reproduction of a thing for the purpose of study is a form of measurement enhancement. This is also a tool in the same manner a hammer or a computer is a tool. Special purpose computational tool, perhaps. A computer in the modern sense of the word, absolutely not. It is neither general purpose nor is it Turing complete. Please note that my initial reply stressed the point of a modern understanding and use of the word computer. If people wish to call this a mechanical computer it is more similar to a differential analyzer and yet still less capable. As human beings alive after the Second World War, we have far more terms with which to accurately categorize mathematical tools. Calling something more similar to an astrolabe a computer is akin to considering a hand saw and a circular saw the same thing.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. I don't see how either is a "tool of measurement." A ruler, scale, thermometer... these are tools for measurement. A simulation doesn't measure anything. The purpose of the mechanism is not to measure, it is to predict. It calculates, and that makes it a computer. > A reproduction of a thing for the purpose of study is a form of measurement enhancement. The issue is not with the use of tool, but I don't see how measurement enters into it. Measurement enhancement is not a general form of anything. A simulation is not for measuring, but for evaluating the effect of changes, for evaluating models, for tuning performance or safety, or for testing. Though measurements may be taken within the simulation, the simulation itself does not measure anything. > Special purpose computational tool, perhaps. A computer in the modern sense of the word, absolutely not. It is neither general purpose nor is it Turing complete. There is not a modern definition so much as there is context. You're defining computer to mean a programmable electronic device, I think you mean Turing machine, but this is a very specific meaning for a very general term. A computer is simply anyone or anything that computes. In fact, a computer can be anything from an abacus to a slide rule to a calculator (analog or digital) to even an automatic transmission. "Computer" does not necessarily mean anything electronic unless context dictates that it does. > Please note that my initial reply stressed the point of a modern understanding and use of the word computer. There are plenty of computers still waking around today that are not digital, and many of them we call computer scientists. > If people wish to call this a mechanical computer it is more similar to a differential analyzer and yet still less capable. As human beings alive after the Second World War, we have far more terms with which to accurately categorize mathematical tools. An astrolabe is not a computer, it is an instrument for making astronomical measurements. Instead, a computer is anything (or anyone) that computes, calculates, or reckons. We can be more specific by qualifying analog computer, or mechanical computer, or microcomputer, or even an accountant, but they are all computers. The category error is not necessary; only context matters here. > Calling something more similar to an astrolabe a computer is akin to considering a hand saw and a circular saw the same thing. That they are both tools does not mean that a screwdriver is also a wrench. They are both within the category of tools, but not all within the same category are of the same type. Here is another category error: Socrates is a man. I am a man. Therefore, I am Socrates. The issue is with your premise that all computers are Turing machines when, in fact, it is the opposite that is true. All sparrows are birds, not all birds are sparrows.

smitty1e 4y ago

It's an analog computer.

jacobolus 4y ago

This is an unhelpfully reductive definition of computer. The name computer used to mean people who compute things, but it’s also entirely reasonable to call a device which performs computations a “computer”, including tools like an astrolabe, slide rule, or nomogram. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

achrono 4y ago

Regardless of where this thread ends up on the definition of 'computer', I guess the more interesting question is: how close might these folks have been to building something like Babbage's engine? If you had to introduce programmability, memory etc. -- no matter in how rudimentary a way -- how (few) steps away is it from the existing design? I'm no computer scientist but it feels like the Greeks would surely have figured it out pretty quick (after one of them put in a PRD for a general arithmetic calculator of course).