Simplification To Elegance

Churchill on Truth — Winston Churchill on truth

Elegant Reasonism is simple to the point of elegance in as much as it seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority. Einstein once said that “if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend the rest of its life believing it is stupid”. What we now call Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs centrally characterize the scenarios historically obfuscating the truth which has been right under our noses for all of history. Our cognitive contemplations have transpired essentially within a logic trap that is M1 or M2 since 1900.

The Emergence Model

Click the title above and read the cogent description. Everything real in the Universe may be made manifest as a function of that single paragraph. Illuminating what is and is not real is the mission of Elegant Reasonism and it is in context of the actual real unified Universe determining that truth. Never in history have we had such a powerful paragraph. Ever. To say this is epic does no justice to the accomplishment of unification. Know that unification is a great deal bigger than a single discipline of science even though this model centers on that topic. Winston Churchill would be proud that as we dusted ourselves off we realized immediately what had been accomplished. We then set off working to understand better how to articulate unification.

Epistemology

Philosophies of knowledge must be capable of integrating fundamental truth that is not essentially tied to “at scale” human physiology. It must be capable of discerning truth as a function of the unified Universe. Any such epistemology must seek to reduce or eliminate Langer Epistemology Errors as a function of Root Cause Analysis and in context of recognized QMS standards and methods. Elegant Reasonism is such an epistemology. Elegant Reasonism’s three phases seek first to recognize circumstances in a situationally aware context of the actual real unified Universe in a manner that illuminates the issues so they may enable mode shifting interpretive context between models that illustrates vital distinctions for analysis in order to gain the precipice of a fully compliant Treatise.

The Trap

Pretty much everyone thinks everything is impossible until it is accomplished by those who knew no better. That statement applies to Orville and Wilbur Wright as it does any number of a very long list of entrepreneurial spirits throughout history. Clayton Christensen wrote about some of them in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma. The status quo never sees disruptive innovation before it happens. It simply does not fit their worldview.

The trap is this. Circa 2019 almost everyone on the planet believes they are dealing directly with physical nature. They have unwittingly committed what are now called Langer Epistemology Errors. We will get to why and how in a minute. Part of the answer is similar to the allegory of Plato’s Cave articulated over 2,000 years ago. Imagine something logically correct yet physically different. It could be anything, it doesn’t really matter what. A building plan for a house or your car might both be examples. How many different names can you affix to whatever you just imagined? Each of those labels is an abstraction. All of them refer to essentially the same real object. They are logical views of real systems. Now, watch the video below paying close attention to how abstractions manifest instantiating our perceptions of the realm in which we exist.

Abstractions concerning fundamental foundational constructs of interpretive models are highly systemic and relate to how we consider everything around us, up to and including ourselves. Not until we recognize the logical nature of all models employing the spacetime-mass interface do we begin to grasp the implications and depths of the logic trap that is M1 or M2. Then we need to realize that science itself is a philosophy, albeit highly specialized, it is nevertheless a philosophy. We then need to recognize the prioritization of information considerations relative to these fundamental foundational constructs comprising these models. Then we need to make some pretty hard choices regarding predicate priority considerations in the context of root cause analysis. We need to ask if those fundamental foundational constructs conspiring to instantiate such models can ever close to unification or do their fundamental relationships actually preclude unification. We then need to realize what it means to accomplish unification. Unification requires a common geometric basis. Unification requires complete compliance with what we call the realm of the c’s. Unification requires all reference frames to be fully coupled relative to and respective of all fundamental forces of nature. These are tall orders. Critical thinking demands we prevail answering these questions. Critical thinking demands and requires us to analyze the root cause reasons for these fundamental foundational constructs to fail at unification. And when we do ask these questions we critically realize that absolutely nothing real can traverse that interface without first conversion to energy and in that instant of realization we are forced to conclude right then and there that no model based on that construct will ever accomplish unification. It does not matter how much success any such model has enjoyed. It does not matter how many successful experiments have been conducted using them as a premise. What we must do is critically understand how all of these things can be simultaneously true.

Simultaneous Truth: Escaping The Trap

When we realize that what it is we thought we knew is logically correct and we realize the depth of that insight we are liberated beyond measure to more fully inquire into the nature of what must be. Elegant Reasonism employs technology called Translation Matrices. They enabling another concept called mode shifting. Mode shifting is essentially the ability to change fundamental context but in doing so requires us to recognize that comprehensive relationships and their relative and respective patterns change model to model. You can not articulate one model from the context of another. They must be completely reinterpreted. Our original systems review, part of why it took from 2004 to 2019, enabled a mode shifted view of over 400 concepts we now call EMS01. In the end we were able to show that those 400+ concepts have simultaneous truth between the logically correct M1 and the also logically correct M5, but the distinction is that M5 closes to unification as a predicate priority consideration.