Dear Friends,
Summary of the Scandal: It
is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software)
problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind
of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include
real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain
kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved
problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software
researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of
mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for
acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to
facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems.
Isn't common sense: If one
needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try
to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could anyone
draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without
having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a
landmark? If one needs to paint (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know
what it is and how it works or looks like? For
example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing
XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but
insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software).
Without ever
even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific
methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing
to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and
scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven
scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved
problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few
unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific
methods.
Kindly allow me
to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software
crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if
researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about
things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of
physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.
The reason for
the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved
by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating
spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other
product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers
of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For
example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products
such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models
of next generation jet-fighters.
The essential
properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and
universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If
the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods),
it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential
properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real
CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by
eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable
proof backed by evidence.
This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods
to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is
essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved
problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific
methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing
frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for
gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a
branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).
The scientific methods
can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing
knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved
problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many
kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits
on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number
of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.
Even a honey-bee
can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We
might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers
build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to
emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural
instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary
pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and
functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed
and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature
and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand,
scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such
knowledge.
The research
effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing
real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources,
equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and
rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented
my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a
software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or
diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical
components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing
real software components.
I have made such
simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using
scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is
openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate
account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform
in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java
developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for
achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to
prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved
problems.
I don’t have the
resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments
for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural
networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial
Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment
for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and
government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced
for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do
research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific
methods).
To invent
solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the
researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific
methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI,
which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling
many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using
scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been
stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to
gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions.
Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?
Many software
researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a
branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of
science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for
acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such
inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics
Please kindly
remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for
scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation
and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter
and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation.
But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to
cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by
refusing to see the evidence)?
How can we
emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties
and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing
such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only
by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has
no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide
accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
No comments:
Post a Comment