സ്വതന്ത്രനായി!

 അയ്യോ! എല്ലാ കുട്ടകളും ചുമന്നു ചുമന്നു വയ്യ... അവസാനം തത്വചിന്തകളുടെ കുട്ടയിൽ നിന്നും ചോദ്യങ്ങളെ എടുത്തു സയൻസിലെ ഉത്തരങ്ങൾ കിടക്കുന്ന കുട്ടയിൽ ഇട്ടു, അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ (മതത്തിന്റെ) കുട്ടയും തത്വചിന്തകളുടെ കുട്ടയും വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞു, സ്വതന്ത്രനായി നടന്നു നീങ്ങി.

Profileability: A neglected software capability

While preparing a recommendation report for a reputed product as an assignment, I had to plunder on some capabilities that any enterprise level application should encompass at the design phase itself. Though our industry is matured enough to design and implement any scale of software solution with abilities like scalability and availability, I believe, we do not consider one aspect of the design with due diligence. I call it as profileablity. As I've not seen this terminology being used anywhere so far, let's start by defining the very term.

The term profileablity is coined from the self-explanatory words namely 'profiling' and 'capability'. Profiling, in software sphere, is a process of measuring the performance metrics of a software solution, mainly in terms of the space or time complexity. Therefore, profileablity is an intrinsic capability of any software solution to be performance-measurable. In other words, it measures how performant a system is.

Performance metrics can be of different categories. The main category would encompass metrics like Average Response Time, Request Rate, Error Rate.

Being a purely technical and performant concern, profileablity can be achieved by design and tooling.

By Design
When it comes to performance of any system, measurability of the system metrics is crucial. And it is effective only when the system is modularised, and the individual SLAs are defined.

Along with the measurable eco-system, we should devise a system for metrics collection (like JMX) and extracting meaningful readings out of it.

With Tooling
As we have specialized players in the profiling sphere, making use of such tools would be a wise approach. However, a balanced methodology of system capability and external enabling is a preferred way. 

Is God Falsifiable?

In a recent heated discussion on me becoming an atheist, I was articulating the thin line between agnosticism and atheism. Though I was emphasizing the importance of knowing scientific methodology and some theories like evolution, big bang, quantum, relativity and so on, a deeper contemplation made me revisit the very idea of God in the light of scientific methodology. When I was agnostic for at least a decade, my main argument was how somebody could deny the existence of God, or anything that is beyond our empirical knowledge, for that matter. This is a write-up to put forth my own answer (that made me an atheist) to the question, with minimal philosophical jargons. Therefore, I'm not here to address the first and major bunch of people called theists (unfortunately hopelessly), but the second lot namely agnostics.

Let me start by understanding couple of terms here. God is a torn word and idea by now. However, to find a common ground, except Indian philosophy (or spirituality), the term God can be defined roughly as the supreme being with attributes like omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and with functions like creator, sustainer, destroyer, judge. Hope this definition is self-sufficient and well-understood. However, in the eastern thought, it's a very vague and gray idea, that has been interpreted differently and mostly contradictorily. As far as I understand, the main stream of thought in Indian subcontinent interprets it as a process of self-realization, not an entity in itself, mainly because the pursuit of Brahman leads to one's self (aham brahmasmi). Therefore, it's an epistemological way of life, thus needing no mention in this regard.

The other term I would explore is falsifiability. Nevertheless, it needs a background. After the dark ages of religious and philosophical dogmas, the light of the Renaissance started flashing in the 12th century. With the work of his predecessors like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, the English reformer Francis Bacon could lay the foundation of scientific thinking. However, the scientific explosion of today has started with the formal methodology devised by Karl Popper. And, for me, one of the greatest discoveries is his scientific methodology of falsification. According to this, any statement, hypothesis, or theory is scientifically valid, only when it has falsifiability (or is falsifiable). But it need not be true or moral. That means, validity is important to be scientific. Bertrand Russell had popularized this concept with his teapot. In a nutshell, any valid discussion starts only from a falsifiable statement, hypothesis, or theory.

Though Russell's teapot is famous and self-sufficient, let me explain this with my own (mimicked) example. Suppose I say, "I've a travel machine in my backyards using which I go to moon for morning walk everyday, but at the same time nobody else can see or experience it.". In this case, anybody talking about this to me is merely waste of their time. Because it's simply not falsifiable. That means, my assertion could not be proven wrong in anyway. On the contrary, the statement that "All swans are white" is absolutely valid. Because this belief can be very well falsified by showing one non-white swan and it happened in the history. Ok, let's come to the point. Is God falsifiable?

The answer completely depends on the definition of God. But unfortunately, we don’t have any unanimous definition in this regard. However, as I previously took the luxury of categorizing the two schools of thought, we can see the oriental approach of self evolution and western dogma of creationism. In the former, the definition of God is very vague and invalid with the principle of falsifiability. I know this is not satisfactory and calls for debate. However, the scope of the writing doesn't allow me to elaborate the vague idea. Now, what about the later approach? As far as the Semitic God is concerned, it's more concrete. But is it valid? If I reiterate the definition, it is the supreme being that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and that creates, sustains, destroys, judges. If I justify with the definition of God, then it's valid for me. When I'm able to show a creator who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent, it's falsified and therefore it's falsifiable, and thus valid statement too.

However, being a valid definition, is it a true statement or theory? The answer to this question made me an atheist. There are already thousands of reasons (by different people) why this theory of God is falsified. Let me reiterate few reasons here. A God who allows evil/imperfection in his creation is neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. Please don't come with the argument of Thomas Aquinas like "evil is not a presence, but absence of good". It's very old unrealistic understanding of reality. We know people born of inabilities (though you may call it 'with different abilities'). The famous laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe by Richard Dawkins proves that the creator should not be omniscient. To falsify the said definition, I can go on and on. Again, that's not the point of discussion.

All I'm up to is two-folded. Are you talking about a God who is falsifiable? If not, keep mum (be a happy agnostic!). If yes, see if you are able to falsify or not. If you are not able to, come to me. I'll convert you to an atheist (hopefully not over confidence!). Secondly, when somebody comes to you on any healthy discussion, validate if the statement, hypothesis, or theory is falsifiable. If not, avoid such discussion (if not that person). The method of falsifiability saves your day (or life). As Ludwig Wittgenstein says, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

A lament about religion!

The greatest disaster of all, that religion brought in to the humanity, is that it killed the innate capacity for wondering at the universe.
The only one tool, we have got to defend it, is a sense of scientific temper that we could cultivate, at least in the promising next generation.

It's Her Day!

Another 'women's day' has passed reminding that she is not yet free! Why do I think so, sitting inside the giant bird? Maybe, it's because of the man who pushed the air hostess, not even caring she is a human being.

It reposted the question in my mind. Is man essentially moral? Or just taught?

Man must be moral. Even mother dog feeds her puppies. She didn't read any bible. Then what about the man in the final chain of evolution.

Is it not just natural instinct, that she feeds her kids?

No. Then why does she not feed other puppies, other than hers own? So, it's not just instinct.

Then what? If man is moral, why is he killing others? Why is he doing evil?

Yeah, he is socially moral.

What? Are you changing your stand? Essentially to socially? What is this social?

It means... man can't but be moral thanks to his social constructs. If you are not moral, you can't expect others to be so. Therefore, the evolution inculcate morality into our brain.

Brain? Morality in brain? Shouldn't be it in heart?

No. Heart is just a mechanical body part with chemical reactions.

What are you trying to prove?

That man who pushed the air hostess went against his will. Again it's from the patriarchal social arrogance that he gained the immoral social construct.

It's the strong melodious NO, that brought me back into my external senses. The lady in my back row politely rejected the offer to be seated in executive row, as it was women's day.

I think the day is worth observed. At least one lady understood that it's not about speciality, but equality!

എതിരാളി

ഒരുനാൾ
വലുതാവാൻ തീരുമാനിച്ചപ്പോളാണ്
മനസിലായത്,
എനിക്ക് ഒരു എതിരാളി ഇല്ലെന്നും
എന്നിലെ എതിരാളി നിഷ്പ്രഭനാണെന്നും.
അതുകൊണ്ടാവാം
ഞാനിത്ര ചെറുതായത്...

Philosophy or Science?

Philosophy is idealization of reality.
Science is materialization of reality.
And I found myself to be a materialist!