>is one of those nastily large things I'm not even sure is a set. I don't see that it needs to be. The issue is the nature of the function, not the nature of t

>is one of those nastily large things I'm not even sure is a set. I don't see that it needs to be. The issue is the nature of the function, not the nature of the entire space of possible input to the function. >I don't think you will be able to rule out that the drafts in a storm or the swirls in a stream aren't carrying out a computation, if you try to do it over all possible sets of distinctions. You can if you consider the fact that computation has the counterfactual property that different inputs result in different meaningful outputs. Sure, given any arbitrary (complex) dynamic and target output, you can find an input that maps to that output. But given some restricted set of dynamics (e.g. what can be classified as a hurricane), it is safe to say there is no meaningful space of inputs/outputs for which the hurricane will provide a semantic mapping between the input/output spaces (not just a single point in that space, but the entire space). The entropy of the process is just too high to support such a mapping.