This title takes some contemplation to realize that once your interpretive model is declared that it is completely encapsulated and 100% of the available resources brought to bear must manifest everything real. Or your model holistically is incongruous with the unified Universe. That’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s true. Wading through the recursive waves of review in order to penetrate the realm of c’s to gain the precipice, Questing Unification is daunting beyond words, and the only thing stopping you are your own preconceived constructs and paradigms. You see something and you think you know what you are looking at. You think you know the story behind that image. You think you know the metaphors. It is about critical attention to detail. Astute observers will see what the impatient fail to see. The situationally aware will comprehend what the smallest detail means for the holistic whole.
Knowledge Management, as a discipline within Information Science, studies and focuses on the instantiation of knowledge across diverse domains of discourse with their relative and respective detail sets. That requires a critical understanding of the distinctions between data, information, and knowledge. Those who do not understand the deep implications are often caught citing that computers contain knowledge, and that is not correct. Computers contain information. Knowledge requires an ability to act independently in net new scenarios under net new circumstances and usually in net new environments (which requires mobility). Knowledge requires some degree of sentience. Sentience does not imply omniscient, rather here at least it simply means the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively, objectively and in a situationally aware manner. That is to say, it implies an ability to draw independent conclusions based on critical thinking.
Elegant Reasonism is a knowledge management derived standards based framework supporting an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe. That environment however is not a fixed fortification. It is a utility methodology process employing specific tools for a specific purpose. Its execution will leverage any thing short of truth to get the job done. Truth is never sacrificed, and this truth is defined by the unified Universe not humans.
Newbies here often struggle to comprehend the implications of LEEs. More often than not because they don’t realize they are committing them. They erroneously believe the contextual abstractions they deal with daily are reality. They are not. For example you do not directly perceive the chemical bonds in the molecular constructs forming the real objects around you right now. Nor do you directly perceive the quarks in the subatomic particles of any of those atoms. All of those are abstractions within an encapsulated interpretive model.
The predominant status quo models today do not as a matter of scientific fact close to unification. The question is why not? Some want to run further into that cave trying to answer that question because they believe our ultimate success will be based on previous accomplishments. Here, however, our success is blinding us to the path forward. We have walked right over it so many times.
Empiricism has been a great friend to science but the same thing that makes it strong is also its weakness exactly because of Langer Epistemology Errors. We laud scientific epistemology because we can unequivocally state “empirical facts“, which intrinsically employs the common shared experience we have as humans through our inherent physiology. Langer wrote about this in 1948. LEEs occur when we mistake the abstractions we work with for actual real reality. Elegant Reasonism brings a framework to the discussion that 1) seeks to reduce or eliminate these types of errors, 2) it always encapsulates interpretive models, and 3) without exception holds the actual real unified Universe distinct and litmus. Never do we claim to be directly describing reality. The models we create reflect reality. They tell us how we think reality works. Not how it actually is. If you believe modern science is describing actual reality, then you are committing these errors. Which brings us to Translation Matrices employed by the framework which integrate Bayesian analytics along with rules and other standards based tools. History is important here because in helping us to recognize problems it brings focus to how to illuminate illustrating the path forward for analysis. Critical thinking demands that we remember the Philosophy underpinning Science in order to assure that the proper predicate priority considerations are made, and in this case those involve criteria required Questing Unification.
Many if not most scientists believe 1) that they are working directly with nature (e.g. they are committing LEEs) and 2) that they can freely ‘tweak’ some aspect of their thinking at will. Elegant Reasonism demands and requires the use of a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models (one of which is required to close to unification as a predicate priority consideration) juxtaposed with paradigms of interest which together form the basic 2D Articulation Layer of a given investigation. That layer is then holistically subjected to a standards based analytical framework. Holistically, all of this is geared to recognize, minimize and or eliminate LEEs. There is no tweaking allowed in models. They must be iterated and declared within the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent. All too often we all think we know what we are talking about, but this assures that is true. Every declared assertion must tie back to the specific model iteration manifesting the assertion, and all fundamental foundational core constructs must be declared and defined with precision and accuracy. There should be as little wiggle room as possible.
People like to celebrate their heroes. Pulling all of this together required considerable review of materials spanning thousands of years from around the world. We have a large list of Acknowledgements for people and their work which influenced what we have here now. We tried to honor these people and others by including them in our User Library available to registered users only. There are three whose works in particular influenced this body of work (in alphabetical order) they are: Albert Einstein, Susanne K Langer, and Lev B Okun.
So often articles and papers commit the same LEEs as the original author. The real point here is such behavior only serves to reinforce the LEEs having been committed. They do not serve to get us out of the logic trap that is M1 or M2. Just for the record, if someone comes up with a better model than M5 then that would be wonderful and would only serve to make the framework more powerful than it already is.
What are we saying here? 100% of the body of work conducted by Science prior to May 7th, 2019 (when Elegant Reasonism became Patent Pending 16405134) is M1 based. M1 is logically correct, but it can not nor will it ever accomplish unification. It can not exactly because its philosophical foundational constructs preclude unification. M1 is the most successful encapsulated interpretive model in history even today, but that is only so because M5 is so new nobody is using it yet. The Emergence Model is poised to supersede predominant status quo thinking if only because it is fully compliant and closes to unification.
The cogent point here is that previous successes, based on M1, are as successful as they are because of the logical correctness manifested by the context established by that model. M1’s context is logically correct, and it is that logical correctness which manifests that success. But we should never ever forget that model is encapsulated and is an interpretive model – it is not actual nature. To believe that M1 describes actual nature is commission of LEEs.
Encapsulated interpretive models establish fundamental foundational context. One model can not describe another’s context because each is fully encapsulated. Such ‘translations’ are accomplished through our patent pending 16405134 technology called Translation Matrices and tools like our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent. For these reasons is it utterly useless to make statements like “Quantum Theory is well established and has considerable data. You can not possibly be correct.” Well… I wouldn’t be too sure about that. First, we would have to mode shift all of that, and no I haven’t, but I have mode shifted enough of it to know the rest will follow. Besides if I did all the work, there wouldn’t be anything for you to go do.
Mode Shifting is what transpires once Translation Matrices are fully completed as a function of a fully qualified, effective, systems review based investigation. That means the entire effort is standards based and inclusive of quality management systems, six sigma, and others as appropriate. Paradigms of interest or of nature manifest through different patterns within each relative and respective encapsulated interpretive model exactly because their core constructs are likely unique and distinct. That’s why status quo thinking can not tweak current thinking into alignment. It has to be mode shifted across to the new context. This same reason is why communications about what we have accomplished is as difficult as it is. Everyone expects to have common ground, but what they do not understand is that they are saying that from within the constraints of having committed Langer Epistemology Errors. They do not understand that they are shackled within the confines of an epic logic trap that is M1 and M2. Once you gain the unification precipice and fully comprehend what it is that has been accomplished, you will see with clarity never expected or fathomed. I know how tacit and palpable my personal recognition was, and I can only imagine how gobsmacked you are about to be because of the journey you are about to undertake.
The Legacy of Unification
We can not sit on our laurels festooning our successes so they blind us to the future. Elegant Reasonism, as a framework supporting an epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe, posses penetrating clarity that can only get stronger from here. Designed from the outset to leverage what it is we think we already know and mode shift it into better alignment with the unified Universe, it does not matter if someone creates a better model than what we already have in inventory. We simply add that model and keep plowing on and strengthening the scientific method in the process. Because we logically employ Bayesian analytics integrated across some powerfully layered analysis capabilities, employing more than one model closing to unification can only serve to improve insights delivered by this new utility process.
Elegant Reasonism is not a fixed resource. It is dynamic. The models employed may be instantly improved by iterating them or installing a net new model along side of them. Ultimately such improvements must be fully compliant and holistically meet criteria for unification. Entire models can be iterated in seconds using our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent. Do not confuse the requirement to quantify and codify with static. Nothing could be further from the truth or reality. Fixed resources have been relegated to museums and history. Fleet of foot, dynamic and aggressive is the path forward, and this puppy hunts.
Evoking Sun Tzu
Fixed fortifications are a failed resource strategy. That’s why we no longer use castles or fixed fortifications in strategic defense. This is also why Elegant Reasonism does not put all its proverbial eggs in a single model. Instead, it requires a plurality of models be employed and demands that at least one of them close to unification as a predicate priority consideration. That’s why it does not matter if a better mouse trap appears in the future. The framework will only work better because of such an eventuality.
Sun Tzu also said something to the affect of “know yourself and your enemy, and you will win 1000 battles”. We must know ourselves. We must recognize that human beings are inside the models being employed by this framework. That places an especially difficult requirement on the epistemologies employed in order to not just accomplish unification but to fully exploit subsequent insights because we did.
The quest for unification is over, but the real challenges are just getting started. We are excited to be alive during these times.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.