This is obviously too big to be digested in a single chunk, but from a very brief first read, it looks impressive. The table of contents alone (19 pages) is an extraordinarily good outline of what CS is, and what the major components and questions of it are.<p>The author is William J. Rapaport, emeritus professor of computer science at SUNY Buffalo: <a href="https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/" rel="nofollow">https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/</a><p>Wikipedia bio: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Rapaport" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Rapaport</a><p>Trivium: WJR is the author of "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo".<p>There've been some earlier submissions, few with much discussion, though from 2015: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388603" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388603</a><p>Also relevant, the "Philosophy of Computer Science" article at the Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16451072" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16451072</a> <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/</a>
I was expecting this without looking at the website : <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/</a><p>Seems to be more relevant.
FYI, Rappaport suggests another book on this topic, somewhat shorter:<p><i>Computational Artifacts: Towards a Philosophy of Computer Science</i>, by Raymond Turner.<p><a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783662555644#" rel="nofollow">https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783662555644#</a>
This is an excellent summary of older work but it needs to be updated with modern type theory. See the following:<p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418003" rel="nofollow">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418003</a>
Thank you, Mr. Rapaport! Gonna break out my new Xerox Phaser tomorrow and print this out for reading. I am super excited as I've become quite bored with Computer Science since reading Zen and the Art and connecting with it deeply.<p>When you publish, I'll be happy to purchase a copy.
Philosophy is advertised as something more fundamental than logic itself. Here it's advertised as something more fundamental than computer science.<p>But when I read stuff like this I question the veracity of it all. The very first section seems to be talking about "science" and "computer science" then it goes on to talk about ethics... Is this really legit? I mean what "science" means and what "computer science" means is more of a english language problem then some fundamental aspect of reality... and ethics are just rules that govern human behavior and the human condition... does this really need to be merged with the formal fundamentals of computer science? It's like saying english literature is part of quantum theory or that morality is intrinsic to classical mechanics.<p>I'm curious but as an outsider looking in... it looks like a load of BS. Any top tier theoretical mathematicians or hardcore scientists have anything to say about philosophy? Or even the philosophy behind computer science? Is it worth reading this stuff?
Whoah. He goes for 360+ pages before even touching the titular subject of his book. I would have preferred a simple glossary of terms, or maybe just release 3 books instead of one? It sounds like he wants to teach this book in schools, but as a student, I could easily imagine the professor telling me to buy this whole book just so we can study the last 400 pages. I think it's a waste of money when the professor asks me to buy an entire book because he or she just wants to look at a few chapters.