Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Physical Computing: A Category Theoretic Perspective on Physical Computation and System Compositionality

Nima Dehghani, Gianluca Caterina

TL;DR

The paper tackles the lack of a precise formalism for physical computation by proposing a category-theoretic framework that couples physical systems and abstract representations via functors between categories ${\bf PhysProc}$ and ${\bf AbsProc}$. It formalizes computation as a pair of functors $(\mathcal{R_T},\widetilde{\mathcal{R}_T})$, and develops a rich compositional toolkit based on natural transformations and adjoint pairs to capture refinement, multiple realizability, and nested composition across scales. Key contributions include a rigorous, scalable definition of physical computation, a principled treatment of how different physical realizations can implement the same abstract computation, and a framework to analyze computation at multiple levels of abstraction, including biological and unconventional computing. The approach provides objective criteria to distinguish genuine computation from mere physical change, with broad implications for understanding computation in complex systems, neuroscience, and the limits of universal computation under principles like Church–Turing–Deutsch.

Abstract

This paper introduces a category theory-based framework to redefine physical computing in light of advancements in quantum computing and non-standard computing systems. By integrating classical definitions within this broader perspective, the paper rigorously recontextualizes what constitutes physical computing devices and processes. It demonstrates how the compositional nature and relational structures of physical computing systems can be coherently formalized using category theory. This approach not only encapsulates recent formalisms in physical computing but also offers a structured method to explore the dynamic interactions within these systems.

Physical Computing: A Category Theoretic Perspective on Physical Computation and System Compositionality

TL;DR

The paper tackles the lack of a precise formalism for physical computation by proposing a category-theoretic framework that couples physical systems and abstract representations via functors between categories and . It formalizes computation as a pair of functors , and develops a rich compositional toolkit based on natural transformations and adjoint pairs to capture refinement, multiple realizability, and nested composition across scales. Key contributions include a rigorous, scalable definition of physical computation, a principled treatment of how different physical realizations can implement the same abstract computation, and a framework to analyze computation at multiple levels of abstraction, including biological and unconventional computing. The approach provides objective criteria to distinguish genuine computation from mere physical change, with broad implications for understanding computation in complex systems, neuroscience, and the limits of universal computation under principles like Church–Turing–Deutsch.

Abstract

This paper introduces a category theory-based framework to redefine physical computing in light of advancements in quantum computing and non-standard computing systems. By integrating classical definitions within this broader perspective, the paper rigorously recontextualizes what constitutes physical computing devices and processes. It demonstrates how the compositional nature and relational structures of physical computing systems can be coherently formalized using category theory. This approach not only encapsulates recent formalisms in physical computing but also offers a structured method to explore the dynamic interactions within these systems.
Paper Structure (18 sections, 5 equations, 6 figures)

This paper contains 18 sections, 5 equations, 6 figures.

Figures (6)

  • Figure 1: Commuting diagram and representation of physical-abstract as proposed by Horsman2014Horsman2018. (a) Commuting diagram for an experiment to test a theory. (b) Abstract theory is used to predict the evolution of the physical system. (c) Evolution of the physical system (computer) is used to predict abstract evolution. Note: dashed blue lines in b and c are not utilized in predict and compute cycles.
  • Figure 2: Simple mapping account (after Putnam)
  • Figure 3: Refinement in the AbsProc as natural transformation between abstract processes and natural transformation between different physical realization of addition (The example for decimal to binary to assembly was adapted after Horsman2014).
  • Figure 4: Adjoint pair shows multiple realizability of a given abstraction in different physical systems.
  • Figure 5: Nested computation as represented by natural transformations (covariant case).
  • ...and 1 more figures