View source for User:Sven/Positive Framing for Analog

Let's face it: '''The word »analog« is associated with a thing from the past'''. We are in a world where literally everybody, in particular in politics and economy, works on intensifying the »digital« lifestyle/experience/process. In many contexts, »digital« is a synonym for progress, future, efficiency and, in economical terms, growth and prosperity. In these situations, »analog« is typically used as a synoym for the »offline world« with all its slowness, mindfulness, probably backward-looking policies. Where »digital buisness scales«, analog (at first glance) does not. The word »analog« was sacrificed for a digital world.

Obviously this perception is far away from the academic world, where there are unbiased definitions for analog vs. digital in the context of signal processing, information theory, electronics and more. But here is the catch: The fast-moving trends make big fuss about wording (often also refered to as »bullshit bingo«). Digital is cool and hip, analog as the antonym is the opposite. It is very hard, maybe impossible, to change this worldwide perception in the non-academic world. Therefore, we need alternative terms to overcome prejudices.

== Learning from the Quantum buisness ==
The term »quantum« has an interesting past. Without doubt, quantum physics is percieved as one of the most complex scientific domains, on pair with rocket science or nano technologies. Names such as Albert Einstein are associated with quantum physics, so apparently one has to be very clever to understand quantum physics.

And yet the term »quantum computing« gained traction. In my impression, the word »quantum« is associated with mystical and complicated but superior phenomena compared to the »traditional« world (the correct scientific antonym is in fact »classical«). It does not even matter how »quantum computing« works in detail. Coincidentally, there is an awful lot of analog electronics involved in quantum circuitery, and it is even safe (but very academic) to say that quantum computing implements a superset of the analog computing paradigm.

Stating that analog computing is »part of« or »beyond« quantum computing is an appropriate non-scientific expression and allows the analog paradigm to acquire a taste of the mysterious and superior quantum world.

== Continous Computing: A correct synonym for analog computing ==
'''Analog computing is »continous« or »continuity« computing'''. Technically, this is right both in terms of time and value representation, and it sounds way more forward-looking then »analog« computing. Continuity is associated with an unbroken chain, with perservence, strength and trust. It is undoubtfully a more positive connotated adjective then »analog«.

'''Analog computing is »real« or »real valued« computing'''. This sounds more technical, but has a deeper philosophical touch, since the »reality« is frequently described as being »analog«, and being/remaining »virtual« is frequently percieved as a shortcoming of the digital world. »Real computing« is certainly a very bold statement, probably even offensive. However, it also highlights that the objects of analog computing are elements of the real world, suggesting a simplicity, directness and comprehensibility which is not wrong at all. Making calculus more accessible is in fact one of the strong points of analog computing.

'''Analog computing is »calculus« computing'''. The term »calculus« is a doubled-edged sword: On the one hand, it can awake similar associations as »quantum« (with all its assets and drawbacks). On the other hand, most people with a high school graduation have some remembrance of calculus, which is assumably for most people not positive. Technically, the term is very precise, as differential calculus in form of ordinary differential equations is the natural mathematical language for analog computers in the same way as Boolean algebra is for digital computers. And yet I never hear of »Boolean« computers.

'''Quantum inspired computing''' (exists).

== Summary and disclaimer ==
I suggest people to use alternative terms for analog computers, in particular in order to convince buisness people. Neglecting scientific correctness is not only permitted but required in order to overcome barriers and biased opinions. It is natural to choose a different language for different audience, something which is well known in scientific outreach and education. It cannot harm but only increase understanding and evventually allow for using more precise words once a common understanding and language has been found.

As a disclaimer, the auther wants to confess that he is quantum physicist and a 21st century child (»Gen Y«). Of course I'm fascinated both by quantum physics and the digital world/economy and all its possibilities. And yet I'm into [[anabrid]]s mission of incorporating analog computing in a digital world. As a scientist, I see no contradiction in exploiting the best of digital and analog computing approaches at the same time. As an entrepreneur, I see a wall of prejudices against the »analog paradigm«, and this is mainly a »communications drawback«, where proper wording (framing) can make a huge difference. This is why I wrote this essay.