Professional Scientists, Editors, & Publishers

Civilization is in a strange place. The scientific method has been subtended and is now on a path for implosion, and here is why. First I want to point out the current situation. I am reminded of Dr. Neil deGrass Tyson dusting off his hands in his Masterclass Video advertising piece. Dr. Tyson, things are not what they seem, and you can not accomplish unification, and I know why that is true, and you do not. So, I might not be so quick to do what you did. This is not really a message for Dr. Tyson, and my advanced apologies for using him as an example, because he is one of the world’s foremost communicators on science, and I very much admire and appreciate everything he is and does. But this is just how strange the situation we are all in is.

Can any of you unify physics or are you rationalizing why you don’t need to do that?

As professional scientists you likely deal in empirical facts, peer reviews, etc in order to describe what is perceived to be “the real world” or “nature”. What if that realm of context were slid out from under your feet and changed without your permission, or comprehension of what was going on? The core message from the above video deals with fundamental foundational context. Do you understand the fully compliant aspects of empiricism as a function of the unified Universe? If you do not then I very strongly suggest you study LEEs Empiricism Trap to cognition. Then you have hope in understanding the depths of the implications.

Cognition of LEEs Empiricism Trap

Do you truly comprehend what unification means? Unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any one discipline of science. Can any of you paint the story of just prior to the Big Bang all the way to you reading these words here? Not only can we do that, we know why you can not. The reason is that we hold the keys to escape the shackles ensnaring you. What we are beginning to do is integrate the body of our work into our web site so that we might bring to civilization the keys to the proverbial kingdom. Yes we accomplished unification. Yes it’s epic. Yes, yes, yes… let’s get on with what it means so we can collectively do something about it. I already know that none of you can accomplish unification mostly because I am familiar with the logic trap ensnaring you. So before any of you go jumping on me, I very strongly encourage you to pay attention. I’ll tell you how later because that’s not the point. The point here and now is about the situation where all of you are operating. You guys are in a round room looking for the penny in the corner. You are never going to find it because there is no corner. Enough with the euphemisms.

You guys all believe that science today is dealing with reality and discerns immutable laws of nature. I think every single professional reading this will agree to that statement. Unless you can accomplish unification, you are wrong that those are laws of the Universe. You are working with laws that are true to and in the context of the model manifesting them, and that model is just that, a model. To believe that this model IS the actual real Universe is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Yes I know too you do not yet know what those are. I have accomplished unification, and I know how it works and why what you are doing fails. First you confuse philosophy and science. Many of you think those are separate things. Then you fail to comprehend the implications of human physiology being a part of all that is. Humans are intrinsically an integral part of the actual real unified Universe. Lastly, when you peer at the WMAP data consider the Lambda CDM or Hubble Ultra Deep Field images you believe “that” is THE Universe, rather than just a tiny fraction of it.

Listen very carefully to Richard Feynman because what he says here is critically salient to the situation we are in, and SolREI, Inc has reconciled in order to accomplish unification. Yes I can say that because we hold the patent. Deny that at your own peril. We are trying to help, not be arrogant. You can not fix something if you do not recognize where and how it is broken. Persist in status quo thinking and you will be relegated to history’s dust heap.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k[/embedyt]

Science, is a highly specialized branch of philosophy, but it is nevertheless a branch of it. That means philosophy predicates science. As your blood pressure is no doubt rising consider Susanne K Langer’s point on page 74 of her 1948 book Philosophy In A New Key, where she (paraphrasing) made the point that mistaking the abstractions humans work with for actual reality is a fatal flaw in epistemology. Once you comprehend those implications, presuming you ever do, then there is the profession, process, and practice of Systems Engineering from information sciences. Of key and critical import is the fact that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different.

Immutable Laws of the Universe or Context Established by Encapsulated Thinking?

So you think you are working with “Laws of the Universe“? Again, if you can not accomplish unification, you are absolutely not working with such laws. Here’s what you are doing. What Albert Einstein did was to create a logically correct model of the Universe. That model established fundamental foundational context. What you are working with are “laws of that particular context” which happen to reflect the logical correctness of the model, which also are congruent with reality. Said another way, reality supports the logical correctness of the model you employ. Would you like to know why nothing in the model of the Universe you think you are working with will ever accomplish unification? The answer has already been articulated in this open letter, and I will almost guarantee that everyone reading this is aghast in shock, denial, or utter rejection. What they are doing is wrestling their own pigs (e.g. affecting internal paradigm shifts necessary to comprehend what is being said).

The implication that what Einstein created was logically correct is one of the most liberating concepts you will ever encounter in your life. It was for me, so I can only presume it will be for others as well. The implication is simply this: if he was logically correct, then it is possible another model will simultaneously also be logically correct. It was that premise that drove our 2005 Systems Review, which culminated in 2019 with our USPTO action. That action creates a framework we call Elegant Reasonism which is a methodology, process, and technology set which provides the means to establish a new epistemology (which integrates empiricism, et al) that produced the first model fully compliant and closing to unification that we call The Emergence Model. The Emergence Model is simultaneously true with predominant thinking with the exception that it closes to unification whereas what you are currently using not only does not, it never will.

If you do not comprehend science subtended to philosophy, then you will never comprehend predicate priorities necessary to get beyond Richard Feynman’s point in the above video. Elegant Reasonism currently recognizes seven encapsulated interpretive models. Two of those models close to unification. Elegant Reasonism requires, however, that all investigations employ a plurality of models and one of those chosen must close. All of this is articulated on our web site, and I’m not getting into details here. Simply register on the site, contact us if you are an editor or publisher of peer reviewed periodicals, and we will grant you VIP status. You will then have full access. Right now we are doing this for free (because it is the right thing to do). It is our contention that all professional periodicals immediately move to embrace Elegant Reasonism for reasons that will become increasingly obvious as your comprehension grows on these issues.

WTF?! B.S.?!??

We have all grown up and acquired familial dealings with concepts and the real objects around us. We think we have a great handle on reality. Particle physics constantly and patently demonstrates symmetry, behaviors, phenomena all producing reams of data, papers, books, articles, and EMPIRICAL evidence that has been both peer reviewed and duplicated to verification. Not only that, we have tens of thousands of experiments conducted over the last two hundred years. How on Earth could anyone refute all that? Well no one is refuting anything. What we are pointing out is that we are all human. As human beings our physiology generated by our DNA employs sense-organs that furnish our brains intrinsic abstractions in order to relate to reality. We then layer those abstractions with philosophical abstractions beyond those familial environs, and we begin to see just how systemic their fundamental foundational nature is. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Only in holistic recognition of these issues, and through the use of tools like our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent are such abstractions quantified and codified for inspection in the holistic context of Elegant Reasonism. When such inspection is actually performed, you will see that none of this is B.S. You will instead experience the awesome power this new framework represents.

The fundamental flaw with empiricism is our own physiology. We may duplicate to anyone’s heart content, and if we tie all that out to an encapsulated context that does not close to unification, then we have all fundamentally missed the point and committed Langer Epistemology Errors. Empiricism is necessary but insufficient to accomplish unification. What Elegant Reasonism provides is the framework necessary to minimize that potential impact, and therein lay the motive for this open letter to publishers and editors. Because if you do not embrace Elegant Reasonism, then you are perpetuating the problem and not helping to put humanity on a path recognizing the implications of unification.

The Quest for Unification is Over

Emotionally vested people will likely reject what Elegant Reasonism represents for quite some time, but it doesn’t change anything. Unification has been achieved. Deny it if you must. That denial is not going to stop or slow anything. Status quo thinkers are upset. That is already obvious. They don’t want to believe that this has been accomplished much less the manner in which it was done. They think they have a birth right to critical thinking that simply is not true. It never has been. They will likely espouse all the reasons their detail sets and domains of discourse tie out to a logically correct model, and we can simply point out that their chosen model does not close to unification. Just like Neil deGrass Tyson in his video ‘dust off our hands’. Again we mean no disrespect to anyone. We are simply trying to convey the situation, to get the attention of the correct people, and suggest that Elegant Reasonism be considered within their relative and respective sphere of influence. Everything we do going forward depends on this recognition. Civilization must open the door, chose to walk through it, then perceive and engage the actual real unified Universe.

The Path Forward

So before you arrogantly declare that I don’t know what I am talking about, you need to take a very deep breath and engage all of this material to comprehension. What I can report is that once I was where you guys are. As I developed all of this for my company, I was humbled beyond measure. It crushed everything I thought I had come to know. What gave me great solace, and too comes as a strong warning, is that Elegant Reasonism can pick up an encapsulated form of what it is we think we know, spindle it, mode shift it into alignment with the unified Universe, and create a net new Treatise with insights never before fathomed. In a sense it takes what we have and leverages it going forward. The problem with this is the same capability exactly because anyone anywhere comprehending Elegant Reasonism may at their discretion, will, and mercy wield this new capability whether you deny any of it or not. The only defense against such an attack is to embrace it yourself and do it before they do.

Publishers and Editors beware that what you thought you were working with is not what you believed. What you are working with is illusory context of a model which will never close to unification. Be warned. I don’t care if you are working at AAAS, Astronomy, Nature, Phys.org, Science, Scientific American, or any of an incredibly long list of well respected peer reviewed publications. All of us, including my company and me personally, at some point were mired and otherwise ensnared in the logic trap that is M1. The mechanism of that trap is now what we call Langer Epistemology Errors. Elegant Reasonism constitutes quite literally the keys to the kingdom, and it is the only escape we have found from such traps. We filed for and have received patent pending 16405134 on Elegant Reasonism in order to bring all of this to civilization in a manner that only fools will deny.

Will all of this come as a shock? Probably, but what truly epic advancement in science isn’t? The scientific method requires us all to be open minded but not let our brains fall out. We require repeatability standards. We require review. We require debate. We require skepticism. We require new ideas to be fired in a crucible to discern truth. Well, Elegant Reasonism is right here, right now, right in front of you and under your finger tips. You need only see as you look. Your independent critical thinking is required. Do not look for some expert anywhere else because that expert is between your own ears. You do not need advanced PhDs to comprehend any of this. What you need is a healthy dose of common sense. When your proverbial light bulb is turned on and you get this, you are almost certain to be utterly gobsmacked.

The Framework

Elegant Reasonism provides a fully compliant, science based framework in full context of predicated philosophy that conforms to and complies with critical thinking, ISO 9001 QMS, Six Sigma, standards, Root Cause Analysis and more. We have made available a rather large User Library of public domain resources which collectively facilitate and act as fodder for research, understanding, and contemplation. There is no subscription required or fee charged to access that library. The only requirement is that you register. The Elegant Reasonism framework has three basic phases supporting any given investigation: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis all working toward developing a given treatise. The final fully compliant Treatise reflects alignment with the actual real unified Universe. Reality is always and without exception held distinct, apart, and litmus. Never, ever, does Elegant Reasonism claim to be actually describing what is. Rather what it does is develop models which reflect what is. What is, is always held litmus as the final arbiter, and the reason for this requirement is the elimination and reduction of Langer Epistemology Errors.

Mode Shifting

Elegant Reasonism employs a concept therein called Mode Shifting. Because foundational models establish context individual facets of models can not be tweaked into alignment with the unified Universe. 100% of any model must be ‘gang switched’ into the context of that other model. Modes of thought must change because fundamental philosophical definitions change. That’s how context manifests itself model to model. That’s why we place paradigms of interest juxtaposed against a pluralistic set of models each of which must declare how that relative and respective paradigm manifests within each model. We then layer all of that against analytics in order to develop something in final holistic alignment with the unified Universe.

SolREI

The SolREI company is working hard on an Elegant Reasonism 101 course to educate everyone wishing to comprehend these issues, but that course is not required. We are working to integrate the website, Facebook pages, and our SolREI Studios YouTube channel. Simply register as a learner on our website and dig in. Once you are registered the system will immediately authorize access. If you are an Editor or Publisher contact us after you register. We will exchange a few emails and then get you going. Please understand that we are a small shop and you guys are many. What we have is under heavy development and subject to change or better articulation of what we are trying to convey.

We leave you with our intro video.

Summary

The traditional standards for publication and peer review have now changed. The reason for the change is simple, science has produced greater insights into the philosophical taxonomy and methods used to produce data, information, and knowledge by recognizing the significant implications of context. Anyone skilled in Elegant Reasonism may at their discretion, will, and mercy mode shift any given investigation’s results model to model. If the original authors were making claims solely on the basis of a single model which did not close to unification then their conclusions are at risk. That risk will be shared by publishers, editors, professional scientists, and educators. This includes legal findings based on similar results. The standards traditionally employed are necessary but insufficient to gain perception or engage the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism puts the necessary framework in place to rectify and reconcile these various issues. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Any other truth is simply incongruent with the facts, data, information being presented to us by the realm in which we exist. The fundamental design of the framework that is Elegant Reasonism is such that any improvement to any facet of it only serves to strengthen its basic capabilities. It is something akin to a marshmallow in that it surrounds problems and challenges. Then it piercingly recognizes recognition issues, illuminates them, then analyizes them developing insights aligned with the unified Universe. All the while employing standards, metrics, and tools common across industry worldwide. The path forward is clear.

All the best!

The SolREI Team

__________________________________