"I think therefore I am" ... René Descartes. With this famous quote one of the great early philosopher of science questioned the validity of everything. Let me quote from “wiki”: Profoundly influenced by Euclid, Descartes was a rationalist who invented the foundationalist system of philosophy. He used the method of doubt, now called Cartesian doubt, to systematically doubt everything he could possibly doubt, until he was left with what he saw as purely indubitable truths. Using these self-evident propositions as his axioms, or foundations, he went on to deduce his entire body of knowledge from them. The foundations are also called a priori truths. His most famous proposition is “I think, therefore I am”.
This kind of doubt might not be productive in 21st century. We need to make certain assumptions. Each must assume, he exists and his life experiences were not hallucinating (e.g. as in famous move sequel Matrix) or dreams (e.g. there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived).
I worked as a software engineer in semiconductor Industry (e.g. KLA-tencor, Adantest and non-semiconductor companies such as Oracle) for more than a decade. So I believe and assume, most of my perceived knowledge about the semiconductors is real. I have no doubt semiconductors do exist. I extensively travelled, so my perceived experience about my air, car and train travels are real.
I have been using Internet/web for nearly two decades, so I have no doubt about the existence of internet and fibre-optic networks. If any of them is not real, only possible answer is I must be hallucinating (e.g. as in famous move sequel Matrix) or dreaming (e.g. there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived). Therefore I assume my experiences are real for all my discussion on this and other forum, which is rooted on my assumption that I am not hallucinating or dreaming.
For example, if I am debating or expressing my views over the forum with you and/or every one, I believe you and every one I am sharing my views do exist. Because I am using internet to share my views, the Internet and all its building blocks (e.g. semiconductors, computers, cell-phones and fibre optic networks). Only way any one of them is wrong is by proving that I am hallucinating or dreaming.
In other words, I am dreaming or hallucinating is the only possible explanation for any of them to be wrong. So my first principle is that I am not dreaming or hallucinating. If this is axiom or first principle is wrong, anything I believe to be a fact or absolute Truth could be wrong. My air travel experiences, airplanes, my car and my experiences of driving to work can be just a hallucination.
I faced hostilities, when I requested many respected researchers to discover truth about physical functional components and CBD (Component Based Design) of one of a kind physical product (e.g. an experimental jet-fighter or prototype of new kind of spacecraft). I was forced to question the basis for my knowledge and validity of my perception of reality, when I faced hostilities.
A good faith scientific debate must be rooted in a shared context and foundational assumptions. Many experts insisted that, the Earth is centre is equally valid as the Sun is at the centre. Although ‘the Earth is static at the centre’ may be justified in relativistic terms, it can’t be part of goof faith debate and not a scientific fact that can be explained, for example, by using our scientific knowledge such as universal gravity or Newton’s laws of motion.
For example, if I am travelling from New Delhi west words to New York flying over Europe, Is it good faith argument, if I say that while my flight is struggling to stay at a static location, the New York travelled towards my location for my flight to land at New York Airport? By the time the New York catch-up my flight, the Earth’s atmosphere pushed my flight backwards/eastwards about 3000KM. This is also true, if the Earth is static at the centre.
Unfortunately these kinds of arguments are not productive, but often used out of context to derail/sidetrack productive discussion or debate that is essential for discovering the Reality (based on already proven scientific facts and knowledge). Mankind’s knowledge would still be in dark ages, if such hostile evasive arguments were to deter the discovery of the Truths/Reality such as ‘the Sun is at the canter’.
Since I don’t have any proof that I am not hallucinating or dreaming, it must be the first principle or axiom for my scientific knowledge: I am not hallucinating or dreaming and assume my experiences with travel, web and computers are real. Most of the scientific facts accumulated by mankind are reality/Truths. How can we explain, fibre optic networks, if our knowledge about light is not sufficiently accurate? How can we explain, computer chips and computers, if our knowledge about electrons and material is not sufficiently accurate? How can we explain Air travel, if Newton’s laws are not sufficiently accurate? Such discoveries would not have possible by using bad faith arguments that ‘the Earth is at the centre’ is equally True as ‘the Sun is at the centre’ in relativistic model.
Since I don’t have any proof that I am not hallucinating or dreaming, I can only assume that I am not hallucinating or dreaming (hence it is my first principle). All my knowledge and experience is rooted in this first principle. I can only hope that every thing I know and experience is not figment of my imagination or deception of supreme deceiver.
How can I know that I am not deceived by supreme deceiver? Philosophy of science is fun and scary at the same time, isn’t it?
Best Regards,
Raju
Research Irrefutable reasoning to prove that the existing CBSD is a p...
Dear Raju,
You try to hard to get all the answer through reason alone.
"We know the truth not only by means of the reason but also by means of the heart. It is through the heart that we know the first principles, and reason which has no part in this knowledge vainly tries to contest them. The Pyrrhonists who have only reason as the object of their attack are working ineffectually. We know that we are not dreaming, however powerless we are to prove it by reason. This powerlessness proves only the weakness of our reason, not the uncertainty of our entire knowledge as they claim." Pascal
Hello Raju,
the trouble with english is: In english you will just find the word "reality". In german language you will find two different words "Realität" and "Wirklichkeit".
Imagine it hierachical like this:
Realität -> Wirklichkeit -> Illusion
Wirklichkeit means everything you perceive, while Realität means everything which is going on outside your perception. Wirklichkeit is linked to Realität. They influence each other. Illusion is really only happening in your mind. It is not linked to Realität but can have an effect.
(The trouble with Illusion is that as far as I know on some point discussions stopped. So there is little we can find when it comes to this topic.)
And than again you know exactly from your daily experience that you can influence the world too... which is called "mind over world". But since the proof only exists in your perception... Hard to say if you really changed something in the outer world.
And then again you can change an object and people come into the room. They did not see that you changed that object. Nevertheless they can notice a change.
Now how do you know those people exist? The truth is: You do not. Taking this as an axiom would be Solipsism.
The trouble is... from the point of view of Solipsism science does not make sense at all. You at least have to assume that those people exist.
I mean... you really do not have to. You can be a critic. But the trouble is that likewise in constructivism (you know it is called "parasitic" because it is somehow dependend from other positions and their findings)... when it comes to Solipsism the situation is even worser. Denying another person why should you give anything to what they say? Consequently for you they do not exist. Your axiom becomes your only basic statement that all is anyway a dream.
And than again you cannot disprove if I tell you I am real... Can you? Your thought that everything is a dream is a belief. Now we can come to a consens to say: OK... we are both in the same dream world. And than we might see our dream world has certain properties. And so on...
If we follow this to a point where we start to call what we see perception... and see that there must be something out of us... What difference does it make if we call it a dream or call the dream "reality"?
The trouble with the term "dream" is that it has a specific meaning. You are sleeping and you are in a world which is exclusivly yours. But this is an assumption aswell. Don't you see dream figures in your dream? Don't they interact with you? And don't they show a will?
Can a dream maybe be real too? *g*
Dr. Wrede,
I agree with you. That is my point. We are to assume, we exist and all experiences are real. That is computers are real, airplanes and air travel is real. The computer chips is real, internet is real.
But problem is, when I said “the Sun is at the centre”, someone said “in relativistic terms ‘the Earth is centre’ is also valid”. That is, one is moving relative to the other. He said: you are saying, the Earth is moving relative to the Sun, and I am saying the Sun is moving relative to the Earth.
So to have a productive discussion and sound reasoning, we need to agree on certain ‘first principles’. Hence, I defined that my first principles include we are not dreaming and the shared experiences are real. If he disagrees and says, we could be dreaming, there is no point in any more discussion (because it is impossible to have productive discussion and sound reasoning).
Now how can we resolve the above dilemma (which planet is moving?). If one believes, universal gravity and Newton’s laws of motion, then the Earth is moving relative to the Sun, because we can explain the realty and provide mathematical proof for the planetary orbits. On the other hand, the epicycles and retrograde motions contradict the universal gravity and Newton’s laws of motion.
It is impossible to deny the universal gravity and Newton’s laws of motion, if our experiences with Air travel, computers and Internet is real. Because none of this is possible, if the universal gravity and Newton’s laws of motion is fundamentally flawed (like the Earth is static). Hope you connect the dots and see my logic.
Best Regards,
Raju
I am not a Dr., Raju. Beside that I am not a computer scientist. But reading your attached paper I get what you are trying to say. That CBDS is by now just an idea, a sketch, something desired. If you ask me you got a problem and need to find a solution. You state here that the problem is for example that there is by now no description... no principles... it is a tabula rasa... but that is also an opportunity: You got a lot of freedom here to develope it like you think it might be right... so to say create your own world. The trouble is: You cannot know if others will agree with your world. But that is a problem all inventors/innovators do have.
@Raju, the car, train travels, semiconductors and internet are all part of your essence. At least, that's what existential philosopher Jean Paul Sartre would say. These are existing elements that make part of your living being.
Descartes might have been missing something when he said: "I doubt, therefore I exist." However, something that has not been solved is the mind-body problem. Cartesian dualism is the hypothesis that the mind and body are not the same. How would you prove this?
Something similar to the mind-body problem is the problem of other minds. I have been reading research papers on this topic. One of the latest one I was reading was "Consciousness outside the Head", published on the Behavior and Philosophy journal. It does talk about illusions in a section titled "The Argument from Illusion."
Dear Mr. Wrede,
Mine was an idea 12 years ago, when I accidentally stumbled on to a new kind of software components. Irresistible curiosity drove me to focus nearly full time on the research 12 years ago. I have been doing research passionately ever since and secured multiple US patents for the inventions derived from my discoveries (i.e. nature of physical functional components).
Also I created first ever GUI-API in the world capable of creating real software components for achieving real CBD (Component Based Design) for software. That is, 100% repeatable empirical for any one to create real software components. The GUI-API is available at: www.pioneer-soft.com. Today team of junior programmers can create more complex GUI applications for web than practical for experiences teams at best companies such as Google or Microsoft.
Today it is fully developed model no different form CBD of one-of-a-kind physical products such as experimental jet-fighters and prototype spacecraft. I have been struggling to get an opportunity to demonstrate proof. These struggles and failures gave me unique perspective on philosophy of science.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
In general I agree with you. But I have to admit, I am not a philosopher. But my experience described in my previous response to Mr. Wrede, gave me unique perspective on philosophy of science.
I feel, philosophy in general is super set to philosophy of science and/or may have subtle differences, for example, in respect to metaphysics.
Best Regards,
Raju
I'm not a man... Sry, do you either prefer to be adressed by your last name? I did not pay attention to it as normaly people use first names in internet conversion. It was not meant to insult you.
True... API is somehow comparable... (although I have very little experience when it comes to API)...
But do you know what would be nice?
If you had a computer and by changing one component it would indeed come up with its very own software... you just "plug" it in and it works... no installation of drivers needed (but you could make updates in case new software is available)... f.e. if you could plug in extra processor like you plug in your USB stick. Or you just plug in a new grafic card. I mean... right now we got a cube and everything is in the cube. It would be really nice if you had different little cubes you could combine. How often did you have to buy a new mainboard just because your mainboard was not sufficient for a new kind of processor? Or how often did you buy a new processor because it is impossible to extend it?
Or this problem:
Right now there is cloud drive... You need to exchange data between devices in order to use a better function... indeed you need a whole different system... Think about taking a tablet comp with you... once you are at home you need to exchange data between tablet and comp and your phone.... that is somehow lame...
But what if you just plug it in and it becomes 'more'. That would be really cool...
Sorry Carmen, I am having trouble finding the gender for few European names. You can use my firs name. I like some of those things you mentioned too, but I am afraid my research can’t help.
My research area is very limited in scope, which is discovering nature (e.g. essential characteristics) of physical functional components for inventing real software components that are capable of achieving real CBD for software, where real CBD is equivalent to the CBD of physical products.
Except software products, designing of no other physical product is affected by spaghetti code/design. It is impossible to find a valid reason why software products alone endure spaghetti code/design, which is popularly known or manifests as software crisis.
The main benefits of real CBSD are (i) increased productivity, (ii) conducive for higher degree for automation and (iii) substantial reduction in the skilled set required. Additional benefits include many folds increase in quality and allow software engineers to build many times more complex software than practical today, for example, to address more complex problems.
The biggest benefit will be: An error in seed postulation or axiom sidetracks scientific or technological progress into a wrong direction. So scientific or technological progress ends up in a crisis. No meaning full progress is possible until the scientific progress is put on right tracks by fixing the error. For example, if mankind failed to fix the seed axiom for the geocentric paradigm, mankind’s scientific knowledge still would be in the dark ages.
It was the discovery of heliocentric model, it was impossible to discover universal gravity and Newton’s three laws of motion or calculus to provide mathematical proof.
When we are going on the right tracks, we can expect spectacular discoveries. But we can’t imagine what they are until a brilliant researcher discovers them. Even greatest minds Kepler & Galileo (who opened the door of truth: Heliocentrism, by exposing flawed Geocentrism) didn’t imagine Gravity or laws of motion; otherwise must have speculated the reason for the planets circling the Sun might be Attraction.
My modest goal is to expose the error that derailed the progress of software engineering for putting it in the right path. It is hard to predict what kinds of technological treasures lay ahead in the right path for scientific progress. If I have to speculate, discoveries that can result in true artificial intelligence must be one of those technological treasures.
Regards,
Raju
Sry, Raju... I must confess I was somehow amused about your despair. Until I did start to read "Relativity and the Space" tonight... Obviously I had nothing better to do than ruining my world view -.-
Small sins are punished immediately -.-
Miss. Carmen,
It is not despair, but frustration. I can’t believe, even in the 21st century brilliant people unable to understand simple facts (e.g. basic processes and rules). I believe, computer science has largest number of researchers and brilliant people. I feel, software industry is second only to the health care (in scientific investment and/or market size). I don't know how I can get their attention.
Galileo in his letter complained to Kepler that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through his telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth." … Galileo Galilei
Every year billions of dollars being wasted on software engineering research, to explain epicycles and retrograde motion of CBD (Component Based Design) for Software. Isn’t obvious CBD for one-of-a-kind physical products (i.e. prototype of an experimental spacecraft or experimental jet-fighter) is designing 90% of the features and functionality in replaceable components (free from spaghetti code)? It is not necessary that even a single functional component is reusable or have any properties erroneously attributed to the so called software components.
Software researchers wasting their time trying in invent CBSE for building applications by assembling reusable components form component vendors. It can never be achieved. I don’t know, if I can succeed in exposing this error, but I am determined to try my best to expose the error.
P.S: I am going to my native village for 'pongal' festival for 3 days to spend time with my parents and cousins. So might not be able to respond for 3 days.
Regards,
Raju
Raju, I apologize about my ranting. You and Ms. Wrede are both correct in the sense that we must assume something other than solipsism if we want sound argument, that people in the outside world do exist, both physiologically and mentally.
We cannot begin with a tabula rasa, lest our reasoning becomes unsound. I like to add axioms, like those discovered from Aristotle's Metaphysics; namely, the laws of thought which are fundamental to rational inquiry. On top of that, we must add a non-solipsist principle of science, in order to have sound argument.
It is unlikely that any theory of consciousness or subjective phenomenology will ever be falsifiable. It is one of the few assumptions we need to make, to have a human experience. Nothing being taken for granted here, Raju, as I am sure you don't take CBD systems for granted. Aren't there always unfalsifiable assumptions that must be made, in order to make progress in your engineering research?
Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
I struggled with the issues you raised. What is truth/fact? What is right direction? How do we know, and how can we measure, if we are going closer to truth or away from the truth?
I have summarized my guiding process for navigation at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268222629_Raju_Chiluvuri
Mr. Rodriguez, you need to understand the underpinnings of my research for on CBD. I am an accidental researcher. I was a software engineer worked in the Silicon Valley between 1988 and 1999. Also was an entrepreneur between 1997 and 2003. Early 2000 I started working on creating GUI-API for building data driven web applications. At that time, I stumbled on to a new kind of GUI components, which turned out to be real-software-components essential for achieving real CBD for software.
I didn’t know then, what they were and how they work. But for nearly a year, we created several hundreds of GUI components and component hierarchies (by literally assembling/purging in the GUI components). It was fascinating to watch, even junior programmers assembling custom GUI components and creating complex GUI applications in a faction of the time even possible for desktop GUI applications. I had many years of experience in building desktop GUI applications since 1988.
I took me more than a decade to understand the true essence of the CBD and essential properties/nature of the physical functional components. Although my definitions for CBD and physical functional components might not be absolute Truths and there is lot of room for improvements, I am absolutely sure that I am on right path. Also I invest lot of time to make sure that I am in the right path.
This following kind of insights (see more relevant quotes at: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html), in my personal view, makes Galileo one of the greatest philosophers of science.
Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so ... Galileo Galilei
One of the subtle dimensions of this quote is: The scientific process requires transforming subjective concepts into objective concepts that can be measured and/or quantified. At each step of our progress, we must find a way to measure error. If the error is higher than the error at previous step, it is an indication that we may be going wrong direction.
How can I measure error? There is no single answer. It depends on the specific context. You need to try many ways, mostly trail and error, until you found one that you know is correct one. If you are wrong, the error increases in subsequent steps, so you have to go back and start over again.
Since it is not hard to find out any thing you need to know about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products, it is very reliable star collection to navigate in the right direction. It doesn’t guarantee that that the step you have taken is in the right direction, but sooner or later it would let you know that you are going in the wrong direction (as error increases) to make you correction in the course.
As I explained in my paper: I define very broad absolute truths and try use them as guiding stars to navigate closer and closer to the absolute truths. Please recall, examples for absolute truths include “the Sun is at the center”, “the force attraction between two masses increase, if the mass increases” and “the force of attraction between two masses decrease, if the distance increase”.
Please notice, these axioms are defined in a manner to make them irrefutable “absolute Truths”. For example, if you make an exact definition “the force of attraction between two masses increase proportional to the multiplication of masses”, it is impossible to prove that it is absolute truth.
Since you defined “the force attraction between two masses increase, if the mass increases”, you can try various possibilities, such as “the force of attraction between two masses decrease inversely proportional to the distance (or square root of the distance etc.)”. Each gives certain orbital periods, which can be compared to measures defined by Kepler’s laws. Whichever gives least error likely be the step in the right direction.
I am not good at articulating, so I hope the above makes sense to you and why I believe my discoveries are in the right direction. My goal is not to prove my definitions are right, but to prove there exists a right direction and the direction in which researchers trying to advance our knowledge is absolutely wrong direction.
To give you an analogy: It is like saying 500 years ago geocentric paradigm is wrong direction, because it absolute lie that “the Earth is static” or “the Earth is at the center”. If the error is known, I would take no time to know right answer. After all there were just few other possibilities to explore. There were only 9 planets (i.e. at most 9 possible ways to explore).
Unfortunately saying that “the Earth is moving” or “the Sun is at the center” offended then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and common sense (so perceived as arrogant or disrespectful) up until 500 years ago. Likewise, today saying the root axioms for CBSE was flawed (or there exists only one kind of physical components that must have certain essential properties) perceived as arrogant or disrespectful.
I am not sure, I would behave any differently than other experts, if some one were to told me the same 16 years ago (i.e. mid 1999). But I was in unenviable position to carry this struggle for advancement of mankind’s knowledge. If the error is exposed, the Truth would be discovered in matter of months. I am sure, the Truth would be close enough to my definitions (but there is no guarantee).
I try to be as concise as possible, but they end up long replies. Rational skepticism is healthy and also essential for researchers/scientists, while irrational skepticism ended up even justifying obvious errors.
Best Regards,
Raju
Article Raju Chiluvuri
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science