Certainty of Knowing

The Evolution of Knowledge

While time travel is not possible let’s pretend for a minute it is possible. Not so we can change anything but so we can go back in time and ask people questions about the certainty of what it is they think they know. Inevitably their response will affirm their confidence level of what it is they think they know because their use and application of that knowledge is familiar to them. Back when people thought the Earth was flat had reasons they believed what they did. Only when forced to consider issues beyond the familial thinking were those paradigms shifted onto a larger canvas and tapestry. The evolution of astronomy across the history of that science is a great metaphor for “confidence barriers” being broken and established anew. As the situational awareness of our environment increased so were the horizons of our thinking pushed back. While our vision circa 2019 penetrates deep across what we call the Universe vast distances our predominant thinking does not connect fundamentally. That is to say it does not cohesively integrate everything real in the same frame of thinking. The $200 Billion dollar question is “Why not?”

That question can be answered with a single word: “Context”. Expanding that answer just a bit we can say that our thinking is not conducted such that it employs ‘core constructs’ as a ‘predicate priority’ to all other considerations. We can then string these together to form a cogent sentence articulating the issue: Predominant thinking circa 2019 does not employ foundational core constructs which when executed by human physiology manifest our perception of “context” for everything real that exists consistent with the requirements for unification. What does that sentence mean? It means that the if we take all of physics and toss it into a single capsule, that is to say we encapsulate what it is we think of predominantly, circa 2019 and earlier, and we require that capsule to manifest everything real, then it can not accomplish that task in a unified manner. Rationalizations become very elaborate and practitioners stereotypically do not know why or how that circumstance manifests. The question remains, “Why not?”

I can answer that question as well, but we have to take everything we thru into that capsule and explore answering the ‘failure to achieve unification’ question against every concept that has been tossed into that capsule. The Information Technology industry calls such an exercise a Systems Review. Systems Reviews are an analytical reconsideration of everything it is we thought we knew and why. SolREI spent from 2004 until May 7th, 2019 conducting such an exercise. Here’s what we found.

We discovered that generally people confuse abstractions furnished by our central nervous system as actual real objects. We now call such mistakes Langer Epistemology Errors. Humans make this mistake almost every minute of every day, but we do so in order to relate to the real realm in which we exist. There are any number of examples. How many different ways can you describe a given object in your immediate vicinity? Each different label you use constitutes an abstraction. Each different description constitutes a different manifestation of that abstractions. All of them are logically true. Most are also likely simultaneously true. And therein lay the strategic clue to figuring out what the historical problem has been questing the unification of physics.

What Is It We Actually Know

Niels Bohr points out that all material particles are abstractions, their relationships and interactions only definable relative to other abstracted systems. Our abstractions reflect instantiation by reality. The strategic issue at hand answering the above question may be had through effective application of information sciences. Another strategic factor requires comprehension of the fact that a reality system may have multiple logically correct views. The first steps in answering the above question requires a comprehensive quantification and codification of what it is we think we know into Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). There are eight recognized such EIMs, enumerated M0, M1, …, through M7. M1 is the predominant EIM employed by science worldwide circa 2022. M2 represents Einstein‘s original precipice. Splayed out in juxtaposition relative to one another all EIMs then epistemologically represent their logically correct domains of discourse and subsequent constituent detail sets. Since 100% of the recognized EIMs are logically correct (e.g. represent the ability to manifest simultaneous truths to science), we must ask then whether or not each EIM does or does not close to unification. Not whether or not further research will yield unification but whether that EIM as it is constructed, fundamentally, philosophically, and foundationally possesses the ability to close to unification – entering science, not after you get there.

Consequently the only thing we do know, today, is that the predominant EIM, M1, is instantiated by reality such that general consensus would likely easily agree that it is indeed logically correct. Also likely consensus would agree that Einstein’s original view, M2, is also logically correct but perhaps not quite up to modern standards relative to and respective of M1 which is in predominant use. M1 is an evolutionary descendant of M2. Both employ the same basic constructs. The distinguishing feature between them is that M1 considers mass variant, and M2 considers mass invariant consistent with Einstein‘s original beliefs. Consequently each must respect their origins and principles relative to the mathematics they employ. Before we parse the reasons for the divergence in modern science let us make the obvious historical statement, because it is important relative to basic cognition here. What Albert Einstein created beginning in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct and therein lay the strategic clue needed to comprehend the path to gain the precipice of unification. Setting aside the divergence between M1 and M2 as an anecdotal discussion for the moment we then must understand why neither EIM closes. While science presents passionate argument between them, if we pause those discussions, objectify them, and back away from them we realize the common constructs and philosophical denominators in them both. The common thread there are their constructs and essential definitions. While it should be obvious we will state it anyway, for the record, the concept of unification requires credible reintegration of everything real. That means a great deal more than most understand because it also ultimately requires a reintegration of philosophy and science as well. Richard P Feynman pointed out in his 1950s lectures that there are situations where multiple theories all have the same consequences and agree with experiment. That is to say they represent simultaneous empirical truths. He furthermore patently states that science, as a discipline, can not distinguish between such theories. He goes on to say that humanity must then decide which theory ‘looks more natural’ (which perhaps is somewhat subjective). The underpinning issue missed in the point he makes are the philosophical roots associated with those theories. Taxonomically, relative to and respective of information sciences, is that science is the philosophical study of nature. More succinctly it is a specialized branch of philosophy. When it can not discern an answer we must retreat towards our taxonomical roots (e.g. into philosophy). In that case it means epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge. If we distill epistemological abilities, or inabilities, of any given EIM to close to unification, consistent with what we call the realm of c’s, ultimately brutally honest investigators will begin to illuminate to illustration EIM features that inhibit attaining closure to unification. Notably the spacetime-mass interface requires conversion of any real object transiting it into energy thus precluding any ability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in any real reference frame. We must therefore, reluctant as it may be, that all EIMs employing such constructs and relationships are exclusively logical in their nature and not real. What we can say is that reality instantiates those EIMs exactly because they are logically correct, but that does not mean to say that reality can not instantiate a different EIM just as fully. We can also clearly understand that EIMs which can not philosophically close to unification are incomplete, otherwise they would close. But what does this mean and otherwise imply?

The implications and ramifications are that the cohesion and congruence we have previously enjoyed are essentially logical in nature. What it means is that what it is we thought we knew is necessary but insufficient relative to and respective of the unified Universe. What it means is we have more work to do, and a great deal of it. What it means is that we now must work to mode shift what it is we think we know into alignment with the unified Universe.

Knowing Something Is Missing, Increases Questions

If the EIM being used for any particular investigation can not close to unification then those investigators are missing huge areas of investigation. They may well never know or even realize they are not recognizing the entire picture since that means they are also very likely highly immersed within LEEs Empiricism Trap. The situation being made manifest deals with whole domains of discourse that might otherwise not even be fathomed much less recognized. For example, how particular architectures of mass affect interactions within an Event Frame. Ardent defenders of spacetime as being real might never recognize that the absence of a valid geometric basis produces the logic artifacts that will lead them astray (potentially for all of eternity).

Perspectives

The question is not whether or not you know what you know and is certainly not whether or not you believe in that knowledge. Professional scientists, circa 2022, have the certainty they do because of philosophical empiricism employed by the scientific method. Many, if not most believe they are dealing directly with reality, and in a sense they are but likely not in the manner believed. Strategically at issue is that reality can instantiate more than one logically correct view. That is to say reality is instantiating the logically correct view most scientists have on reality, but reality can also instantiate other logically correct views as well, and therein lay the conundrum. What happens when theories have simultaneous truths instantiated in fundamentally different manners but represent or reflect the same consequences and experimental results? To presume that you are ‘defining’ reality because reality instantiates the view you hold is fallacy, because it may also instantiate a different precipice. In establishing the utility process employing the technological framework where the design point of Elegant Reasonism is to establish truth relative to the unified Universe we must also ask a battery of additional questions relative to the ability to close to unification. Because if your thinking does not close to unification then you are subject to all sorts of logic artifacts that will result in an array of red herrings, incongruent elements – all of which you will erroneously believe are in perfect alignment. Erroneous not because you aren’t smart but because the circumstances immerse you deep within LEEs Empiricism Trap. The wrong questions get asked, and answers to standard root cause analysis questions are shifted. The unified Universe will have played a very perverse joke on those who fail to recognize the implications of that fine line between logical reflection of reality’s instantiation and believing you know exactly what reality is. Circa 2023 no one on Earth has specific knowledge of how reality is instantiated. What we do have is how reality instantiates the abstractions we have of it. Unfortunately most of those do not arrange themselves such that they close to unification, and therein lay the challenge ahead.

Breaking Down Barriers to Real Knowledge

There is in clinical psychology something called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Coined in 1999 by then-Cornell psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the eponymous Dunning–Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence. However, lets back up and flip this concept on its head and from the point of view of our time traveler. Those people of the 15th Century would, for the most part, not be able to recognize their own incompetence. Not because they were physically deficient in any way, because there were some brilliant people even back in that day. They were because their paradigms filtering their perceptions were based on inadequate conceptual foundations. Some might argue that was a function of their respective and relative education, but it is much more than that. It is not enough for simple intellectual articulation. What is required is application of situational awareness in context of that information in net new scenarios. That environment is dynamic and it remains in strong play even to this very day. And before you congratulate yourself on some great accomplishment acknowledged by networks of institutionalized thinking be aware that I am likely talking about you not the innocent. Mad? Hold on. Let me explain.

There are PhD’s worldwide reading this thinking ‘this is b.s.’, and they are not meaning Bachelor of Science. There are several epistemologies currently employed by the sciences; empiricism, rationalism, constructivism, etc. Every single one of them has one thing in common: human physiology and everything that goes along with that. About 2005 we recognized the implications of perceiving logical views of physical systems as it is applied to the sciences, most especially theoretical astrophysics. On searching we were greatly relieved to discover that we were not the first person to think of such things. Susanne K Langer, wrote about this in her body of work and we now honor her work by naming the mistake people stereotypically experience after her. Langer Epistemology Errors occur when we fail to recognize the implications of human physiology relating to the realm in which we exist.

The innocent depend on those with greater situational awareness than they for their safety and livelihood, and possessing such a mantle presumes great responsibility that goes along with its authority. So, let’s pause for a minute and ask some very hard questions in the fullest context of all that it is we all think we know. Why does predominant thinking not unify physics? Even more important than that question, what are the implications of being able to accomplish that stupendous achievement? Such an accomplishment is certainly epic. If one can with a single paragraph make manifest 100% of the Universe, then we must intrinsically be able to also describe everything in it, including us and everything it is we endeavor, and without exception.

From 2004 through May 7th, 2019 the SolREI company conducted an extensive systems review into the unification of physics. That effort culminated with our application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for and we have now received patent pending 16405134 status on Elegant Reasonism. May 7th, 2019 a benchmark was driven into civilization when we applied for and received patent pending 16405134 on something we call Elegant Reasonism. What is that? Well, it is a methodology, a process, a technology, and an epistemology required in order to perceive and engage the actual real unified Universe. We didn’t just bring together some esoteric, artists might call inane, science. No. Elegant Reasonism unifies philosophy. All of it, including science, and it seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. It is therefore quite unique and distinct from every other epistemology.

Knowledge Barrier To Entry

There is within the marketing management profession, business planning, and global enterprise the notion of a market barrier to entry. Such barriers in that instance create high barriers which new entrants will need to meet in order to compete effectively in that particular niche. From the point of view of existing practitioners this reduces competitive threats and associated costs. From a consumer point of view it thwarts effective competition, raises consumer prices, and can severely limit new insights that are competitively driven. Monopolistic practices, and other similar attempts to create such barriers are constantly and consistently struck down by the course as anti-competitive. Knowledge barriers to entry similarly work in essentially the same mechanical ways, or at least the results can be considered similar in nature. They are concepts and constructs which otherwise prevent and preclude critical situational awareness of the factors which allow an individual or entity to gain the precipice of unification. LEEs Empiricism Traps are one example of a knowledge barriers to entry (e.g. cognizance).

Negotiators and those conducting international commerce recognize the need to establish common ground for communications. Communications issues illuminated herein are discussed in various presentations and videos available through our network presence, most especially: In Unification’s Wake, Part 03: Communications.

Gaining The Unification Precipice

It is necessary to redefine the fundamental core abstracts employed in our thinking but that is wholly insufficient to get the holistic job done. Tweaking this or that concept just doesn’t get it. Nor will it ever. What must happen is we must assume the mantle of the teacher back in the 15th Century explaining to others why the Earth is not flat. We must presume that it is all of us experiencing the Dunning-Kruger Effect and not just “that other guy”. We must prove what it is we think we know not just to context, but to the actual real unified Universe we must always and without exception hold litmus. That’s where truth lives. Truth does not live in successful manipulation of the realm in which we exist alone. Truth is holistic. Truth must be simultaneously holistic with the body of all we know as a function of the actual real unified Universe. And that is what Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology, is and demands.

Elegant Reasonism demands greater rigor and discipline of thinking fully capable of eviscerating the unprepared mind without mercy. Elegant Reasonism will wipe away undisciplined thinking including entire epistemologies incapable of achieving realization of the actual real unified Universe through science. If your thinking is not based on such capability then you have a lot of work to do. Wrestling your paradigms is no one’s job but your own and it matters not how much help you may or may not have at hand. Individuals must want to know and integrate that information as knowledge instantiated in their every behavior.

Elegant Reasonism is simple but it is anything but easy. Elegant Reasonism requires self-reflection and situational awareness empowered by critical thinking, rigor, and discipline. There is a level of perseverance required, likely encountered only by a relative few. Rhetorically, think about it for a few minutes. Humanity has spent the last several hundred years making tremendous successes within and across civilization. Yet for all those successes we were never able to unify physics much less anything else. Why do you suppose that was so? The answer to that question is that our successes blinded us and all of us committed Langer Epistemology Errors.

How Elegant Resonism Improves Knowing

Elegant Resonism, as a process is conducted across three phases: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis all of which focuses on reduction and elimination of Langer Epistemology Errors with the goal and objective of seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe, and it does not matter what truth it is you seek. Noodle on that also a minute because the answers you will find are likely to be quite illuminating. Elegant Reasonism Rules require and demand rigor and discipline, of course, but applied across a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models, one of which must close to unification as a predicate priority before all other considerations and then holistically juxtaposed against a set of paradigms of interest or of nature. All of that then is subjected to incredible analytical scrutiny. Every abstraction is questioned, quantified, and codified through our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent, and without exception. Realize that such foundational abstractions are highly systemic across everything real.

Here’s what happens when we employ such an approach. We don’t just explain what works, we illuminate what does not and why. The answers to the standard what, when, why, where, and how are reasked in context of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns – not just for one model but for all of them and juxtaposed against that set of paradigms of interest and then holistically subjected to rigorous, disciplined analytical tedium. Some might say this is anal overkill, but it is necessary. And it is necessary for a very good reason: Paradigm shifts are the responsibility of the individual not other people. People who do not want to think have no capability to change their paradigms. They want others to tell them not just how to think but what to think. Elegant Reasonism is not intended for that purpose. It is intended for people to leverage curiosity into what it is they think they know and why, in context of the actual real unified Universe which is never claimed to be directly described but only held litmus to those quests for truth. And it is for that reason that the ISO 9001 Unification Tool is populated as it is. Those are your struggles, and it is not our place to tell you what to think. We have ours, and you have yours. We can help you facilitate those discussions, struggles, and debates, but we can not do it for you. The struggle is yours alone. What we can do is provide fodder for contemplation. Register here right now as a Learner and we will immediately begin the process of showing you where the door to a larger realm exists and we will place the key to opening it in your hands. What you do after that is up to you.

The Fine Line

Elegant Reasonism seeks to eliminate or at least minimize commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Relative to the concept of ‘knowing’, especially if you expect to attach any degree of certainty to that knowledge. Elegant Reasonism sets up a condition where the objective is accurate (precise) characterization and reflection of what we think reality is. We really want to avoid saying anything close to “this is actual reality” because at the end of the day we all use abstractions to characterize constructs in order to discuss our analysis. The degree to which that analysis navigates the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) and the realm of c’s means that in all likelihood we are able to characterize the unified Universe. When our characterizations do meet such criteria we may then compare it to actual reality because that is always held distinct and litmus. Avoiding falling prey to LEEs also helps us to avoid LEEs Empiricism Trap. Everyone understands how fine this line is between reflection and declaration. We all simply need to strive to stay on the non-declaratory side of that line because the alternative is a very slippery slope.

Instantiating A Compelling Case

Civilization has for over 100 years been able to accomplish some pretty amazing accomplishments. In our arrogance, we thought we could directly perceive reality, our failure has been to completely ignore the fact that we are inside the test tube we are working to define and experiment with. We have ignored that the Central Nervous Systems (CNS) of every animal on the planet instantly furnishes signals that animal’s brain manifests abstractions in order for it to deal and cope with its environment, and we humans are not exempt from that. Consequently new instrumentality is constantly causing us to rewrite what it is we thought we knew, and in that specific regard; Elegant Reasonism is no different. The distinction now is that Elegant Reasonism delivers truth as a function of the unified Universe, not perception tied to human physiology.

Mode Shifting Works

The utility process is enabled by its technological framework which empowers analytical rigor necessary to effectively navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) to any successful affect. Enabling this basic capability implies the ability to enable basic mode shifting POI/N EIM to EIM and back again. It requires an ability to cognitively employ logical views of real systems and to understand that reality is almost certainly always out of reach because to investigators inside the test tube it is always insulated and isolated by abstractions. What Elegant Reasonism brings to the investigative table is the ability to surround reality with known reflections of it in order to interpolate how it instantiates the logical views we have of it and that’s a powerful capability heretofore not available. Unification, as a concept, demands a credible capability to reintegrate everything real, without exception. Not just stars, planets, and moons – everything, and that includes humans and everything we do. All of it. It requires quanification and codification of restful relationships. It requires not just that there was a bang but why it banged. It requires reconciling why galaxies move away from each other. The JWST just discovered that acceleration stops at even greater distances and that insight was not available when Elegant Reasonism was developed, yet it rises to the occasion and reconciles the situation with incredible ease. The same situation happened when LIGO came online. For the first time the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox are also reconciled. Elegant Reasonism pioneered the use of what we call concept sieves and we routinely employ three of them, perhaps not very imaginatively enumerated:

EMCS01 – Original Systems Review equations (some 400+),
EMCS02 – Physical Properties, and
EMCS03 – Thermodynamics.

Mode Shifting doesn’t just gang switch POI/N EIM to EIM or each of these concept sieves EIM to EIM, though it does do that – it switches them all, simultaneously. The simple fact that all of this and a great deal more simultaneously change context EIM to EIM allows investigations of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) unlike any previous process in history. Overtime, science as a whole will likely adopt, refine and build on what has been done here. The key has been switched on, unification accomplished and now the real work begins.

Six Sigma & Probabiity

Traditionally Six Sigma is immersed within an empirical framework, here it is immersed in Elegant Reasonism analytical rigor relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Rhetorically how relevant is a Sigma value that is in context of an EIM incapable of closing to unification when compared to one that does? The answer should be intuitively obvious. We first used Elegant Reasonism internally but very quickly realized that this was more important than us. Consequently we created this website to roll it out to civilization. Every test we have done has only improved and strengthened what came before it. If the global rollout is anything like our internal experience, it won’t take long for this to be in every niche and operation worldwide.

Does all of this create “certainty”, no we don’t think so, but then there is that fine line we have to all deal with and which we try and stay above. For the moment, compelling, will have to do.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights!