Ontological argument for the existence of software

I gave a talk two weeks ago in a seminar on design thinking and innovation. As I was preparing for the talk—not knowing exactly what to talk about, but knowing that it should relate design thinking and software—I got to thinking about what software is. It is intangible but has behavior. It must exist, then, but it cannot be sensed. We can interact with bits and pieces of representations of it, but I contend that none of these are the software, not in toto.

This led to me to define the ontological argument for the existence of software, with apologies to Anselm of Canterbury:

Software designed is software created.

Put another way, software that has been designed with sufficient specificity so as to be implemented has already been implemented, modulo syntactic transformation. This is intentionally stated as a material conditional, implying that software can exist which has not been designed, but software designed cannot non-exist.

For example, consider the design of a software system. If this design cannot be implemented, then there is an omission, and therefore there exists a design which is more rigorously specified. For any hypothetical software system, then, there exists “a design than which a greater cannot be designed.” In creating the design, one has created the software: the executable model, the mathematics over time.

(What about the defects, you ask? They are baked right in. I never said that we are good at design!)

One of the seminar participants suggested that this makes software similar to an argument, which exists in the mind and can be represented on paper, but the representation is not the argument. This is a keen insight on the nature of intangibles, but it misses the point that software is an executable model. I was presenting primarily to young architects who are comfortable with static models, which clearly exist, even if one argues that the idea of the model is distinct from the physical manifestation of it. I understand that there is a shift in architects towards parametric models, and the relationship of these creations to the software development process is one that merits investigation.


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: