We investigate the Church-Kalmar-Kreisel-Turing Theses concerning theoretical (necessary) limitations of future computers and of deductive sciences, in view of recent results of classical general relativity theory. We argue that (i) there are several distinguished Church-Turing-type Theses (not only one) and (ii) validity of some of these theses depend on the background physical theory we choose to use. In particular, if we choose classical general relativity theory as our background theory, then the above mentioned limitations (predicted by these Theses) become no more necessary, hence certain forms of the Church-Turing Thesis cease to be valid (in general relativity). (For other choices of the background theory the answer might be dierent.) We also look at various "obstacles" to computing a non-recursive function (by relying on relativistic phenomena) published in the literature and show that they can be avoided (by improving the "design" of our future computer). We also ask ourselves, how all this reects on the arithmetical hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy of uncomputable functions.

Abstract.- Can general relativistic computers break the Turing barrier?- Are there final limits to human knowledge?- Limitative results versus human creativity (paradigm shifts).- Gödel’s logical results in comparison/combination with Gödel’s relativistic results.- Can Hilbert’s programme be carried through after all? 1 Aims, perspective The Physical Church-Turing Thesis, PhCT, is the conjecture that whatever physical computing device (in the broader sense) or physical thought experiment will be designed by any future civilization, it will always be simulatable by a Turing machine. The PhCT was formulated and generally accepted in the 1930’s. At that time a general consensus was reached declaring PhCT valid, and indeed in the succeeding decades the PhCT was an extremely useful and valuable maxim in elaborating the foundations of theoretical computer science, logic, foundation of mathematics and related areas. But since PhCT is partly a physical conjecture, we emphasize that this consensus of the 1930’s was based on the physical worldview of the 1930’s. Moreover, many thinkers considered PhCT as being based on

Abstract. Here the emphasis is on the main pillars of Tarskian structuralist approach to logic: relation algebras, cylindric algebras, polyadic algebras, and Boolean algebras with operators. We also tried to highlight the recent renaissance of these areas and their fusion with new trends related to logic, like the guarded fragment or dynamic logic. Tarskian algebraic logic is far too broad and too fruitful and prolific by now to be covered in a short paper like this. Therefore the overview part of the paper is rather incomplete, we had to omit important directions as well as important results. Hopefully, this incompleteness will be alleviated by the accompanying paper of Tarek Sayed Ahmed [81]. The structuralist approach to a branch of learning aims for separating out the really essential things in the phenomena being studied abstracting from the accidental wrappings or details (called in computer science “syntactic sugar”). As a result of this, eventually one associates to the original phenomena (or systems) being studied streamlined elegant mathematical structures. These streamlined structures can be algebras in the sense of universal algebra, or other kinds of elegant well understood mathematical structures like e.g. space-time geometries

Abstract. Looking at very recent developments in spacetime theory, we can wonder whether these results exhibit features of hypercomputation that traditionally seemed impossible or absurd. Namely, we describe a physical device in relativistic spacetime which can compute a non-Turing computable task, e.g. which can decide the halting problem of Turing machines or decide whether ZF set theory is consistent (more precisely, can decide the theorems of ZF). Starting from this, we will discuss the impact of recent breakthrough results of relativity theory, black hole physics and cosmology to well established foundational issues of computability theory as well as to logic. We find that the unexpected, revolutionary results in the mentioned branches of science force us to reconsider the status of the physical Church Thesis and to consider it as being seriously challenged. We will outline the consequences of all this for the foundation of mathematics (e.g. to Hilbert’s programme). Observational, empirical evidence will be quoted to show that the statements above do not require any assumption of some physical universe outside of our own one: in our specific physical universe there seem to exist regions of spacetime supporting potential non-Turing computations. Additionally, new “engineering ” ideas will be outlined for solving the so-called blue-shift problem of GR-computing. Connections with related talks at the Physics and Computation meeting, e.g. those of Jerome Durand-Lose, Mark Hogarth and Martin Ziegler, will be indicated. 1

Abstract. We discuss the impact of very recent developments of spacetime theory, black hole physics, and cosmology to well established foundational issues of computability theory and logic. Namely, we describe a physical device in relativistic spacetime which can compute a non-Turing computable task, e.g. which can decide the halting problem of Turing machines or whether ZF set theory is consistent or not. Connections with foundation of mathematics and foundation of spacetime theory will be discussed. 1