Modeling Reality (Part 1)

Perceiving all that is in one gulp is quite the problem to articulate, (see Modeling Reality Part 2). SQT or Statu Quo Thinking is believing in the same thing everyone else does simply because they do, not because you understand the underlying reasons for that belief. Elegant Reasonism (see Press Release: Unification Accomplished) is a cold, brutal, master and its truth is but ours to witness and it is delivered by the unified Universe – not us. The unified Universe does not care about your feelings, stature, credentials, vestments, or status. Everything real is and we hold that patently demonstrable.

Problem

Status Quo Thinking (SQT) (circa 1H2023) does not close to unification and in hindsight  never will, but the vast majority of the population is Blinded By Past Successes immersing them in contextual considerations that are incapable of closing to, much less engaging, the unified Universe.

Challenge

Past successes of the Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) which represent status quo thinking can not close to unification exactly because their core constructs preclude it, yet those past successes motivate passionate pursuit of ever more elaborate efforts in the misguided belief a solution will be found. The challenge we all face is presenting enough, overwhelming, evidence in order that individuals may affect their own paradigm shifts to great effect such that comprehension of the precipice necessary to perceive and engage the unified Universe is achieved  for all of civilization.

Alternatives

1. Continue existing pursuits, peer reviews, editorial boards, accreditation agency policy, publications, standards & technologies, and  industry standards methods.
2. Encourage existing structures and organizations to investigate with higher priorities on unification.
3. Mode shift 1 & 2 above and encourage internal paradigm shifts necessary to gain comprehension of Elegant Reasonism across all associated leadership sectors of the global economy in order to affect the necessary paradigm shifts for effective engagement of the unified Universe.

Choice

No. 3

Rationale

SQT can not achieve unification exactly because it is entrenched in contextual thinking derived as a function of the EIM M1 with minor demographics beholden to M2; those EIMs can not close to unification exactly because their core constructs preclude unification requirements being achieved. For example, a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every reference frame can not be employed for all real objects exactly for the reason that nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. That fairly famous formula needs no description here but is a part of Emergence Model Concept Sieve 01 (EMCS01) Concept 0293 (see discussion below) and is illuminated and illustrated by Dr. Lev B Okun’s work describing The Concept of Mass. No 1 is therefore not the answer. Because all traditional epistemologies, including empiricism and especially that specifically employed by science, are an intrinsic extension of human physiology they are all prey to Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) being committed. Therefore No 2 is incredibly wasteful in critical resources, human action capital, and economic engagement. The only choice suggested by our original systems review which we have left is No 3 despite the epic challenge it represents. We must therefore suffer the negative resistance we face in order to gain the precipice so that civilization may accomplish sustainability into the future for the sake of our progeny and our solar system.

Next Steps

• Create the necessary conceptual materials such that unification is recognized for the integration of everything real that it is
• Be prepared for ardent individuals to transition industry standard stages of grief coping and dealing with associated paradigm shifts
• Encourage everyone to wield Elegant Reasonism Transformationally
• Seek out new manners to articulate such that others may affect their own paradigm shifts to great effect
• Encourage entrepreneurial thinking and drive early adopters to engage others
• Challenge entrenched status quo to their own comprehensive systems review
• Engage global consultants, enterprise, business leaders, academics, engineers, and scientists to conduct their own systems review.
• Be open and transparent about Elegant Reasonism as possible and invite constructive criticism, review and improvement.
• Use generated revenues as feedback mechanisms to aid global adoption, comprehension, so that civilization may perceive and engage the unified Universe

Owners

Inhabitants of Sol_03-Earth.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend its life believing it is stupid. – Albert Einstein

The Quest for Unification is over. It was achieved by a framework supporting a like named Epistemology we call Elegant Reasonism, and it is now Patent Pending 16405134 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is protected by all appropriate laws worldwide.

Situational awareness of philosophical context as established by credible science and its methods are vital to perceiving and engaging the unified Universe. – Charles C McGowen

Here’s what everyone expected that did not happen. We all expected the answer to come from the body of current work and thinking. In something of a circuitous manner, maybe it did, but only indirectly. When we stop, think, then act on any investigative subject and ask the hard questions regarding why something can not be achieved, we are presented with a great puzzle that requires different thinking.

Einstein was more right than he ever fathomed.

So you did or are studying science in one discipline or another. Most know who Einstein is and what he did. Minimally maybe,  but everyone has some idea. Here are eight equations to illustrate several key points, and they are strategic clues to how we accomplished unification for reasons only registered users here will instantly be able to understand. We will begin our numbering with 293.

Concept 0293 is

Concept 0294 is

Concept 0295 is

Concept 0296 is

The next four equations are the same as above excepting replacement where E=X, m=y, and c=z. Many, if not most know that E means energy, m means mass, and c is used for the velocity of light (though fewer know or remember why). So what is the point of exchanging the letter designation letter (e.g. variable label) out? The answer is to illustrate that while the mechanics of mathematics remains exactly the same all meaning is lost when the variable application definition is lost. The definition of those abstractions matters in order to establish fundamental context, and that foundation is more critical than anyone in history ever realized prior to our patent application.

Question: Which of the above concepts most rationally follows from Special Relativity and expresses one of its main consequences and predictions?

Question: Which of the above concepts was first written by Einstein and was considered by him a consequence of Special Relativity?

Most people would pick Concept 0294 and those people would be incorrect. That is a modern paradigm of status quo thinking and not the historical fact. History records that Einstein believed Concept 0293 best described these issues. When we conducted our original systems review, this mistake was so predominant that it forced the requirement within Elegant Reasonism‘s framework to employ a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models in order to get at core unification issues. Issues which ultimately required philosophical predicate priority considerations in order to solve.

What Albert Einstein created with his papers remain logically correct.

Read that sentence over and over again until you see the significance of those last two words. Did you know that something real can be described in a logically correct manner yet remain physically different? What must be true in order for that statement to be true? How would you be able discern and distinguish physical reality from a logically correct view of it? Before we answer that question let’s ask a different set of questions.

Can you define the term abstraction? The actual definition on Google is not really the point. What is the point is the behavior tendency of such constructs. They tend to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. If the same abstraction label is employed by two different encapsulated interpretive models, then those differing manifestations of the same label must be recognized, captured, quantified, and codified in some manner so subsequent usage does not become confused. This is most especially true when abstractions are layered and represent highly systemic implications.

An American philosopher noted succinctly that any entity mistaking an abstraction for actual reality is a fatal error in epistemology. That philosopher was Susanne K Langer, and she made that observation in 1948. We were the first to call these types of errors Langer Epistemology Errors, or LEEs, circa 2006 in her honor.

Bringing It All Together

The actual real universe is unified whether or not your thinking of it is. See our other articles posted over the last several months and their supporting videos discussing some lessons by Richard Feynman where he lectures on Knowing vs Understanding in particular, and even Plato and his allegory of the cave from book seven of The Republic in order to help facilitate your understanding of the words here. Feynman asks ‘whether or not you believe a “spacetime” exists and also points out situations where science can not answer particular questions. Part of the point here is that these challenges have plagued humanity since long before Plato. So don’t think these are new issues. Also know that belief systems must also be integrated in a quantitative manner and subjected to analytical rigor and discipline, and for that reason this framework integrates Bayesian analytics.

When we take a given set of paradigms of interest and juxtapose them against a pluralistic set of encapsulated interpretive models, each of which is required to describe in detail how it manifests reality relative to and respective of those paradigms of interest, we find an interesting set of insights emerging. Ultimately, our systems review employing the framework resulted in situational awareness that became the epistemology; which then produced The Emergence Model, and  all of which culminated with our patent application. There is a great deal more to all of this, and only a tiny fraction has been integrated into the website so far. Please bear with us as we work toward that end.

Status quo thinkers out there certain that their vested way of doing things must be correct, and that what we have done must be wrong somehow, are reminded about the coldness of the scientific method. It has no mercy. It doesn’t care how much time and effort have been invested. Nor does it care about credentials. The scientific method is ruthless. When new insights arise which demand a comprehensive systems review into what it is we all thought we knew – we must embrace it, if only in an effort to prove it false. What we can report is that we’ve tried for 15 years to break it and our effort was in vain. You are free to try. In fact encouraged to try and find failure fault with it; however, past success is not justification as that only ties out to logical correctness of M1 it does not disprove simultaneous truth of M5. You are further reminded that M1 does not close and M5 does.

Those heavily vested in status quo thinking may be angered by this eventuality, but all of us should channel those passions into making these insights more powerful than they already are. Those wondering how we wound up in this situation should be comforted somewhat by the fact that every one of us committed LEEs. There are no innocents here, not even me, and my company and I hold this patent. Know that while we have submitted a model that is fully compliant and does close to unification, it may not be the only one. There may be many others, but discovering those will only serve to strengthen the framework and the epistemology it supports.

Many status quo thinkers are very likely muttering about Empirical Evidence (e.g. Empiricism). Important as that is, we must also recognize a strategic flaw with empiricism, and it isn’t anything written or developed by it. The flaws in empiricism lay in those employing it. The flaw is our own physiology because of its manifestation and because we are an intrinsic part of what is. When we pull together that thought with those described above, we are suddenly confronted with a requirement to find truth based on something other than that perceived by a flawed system incapable of directly perceiving all that is. Elegant Reasonism intrinsically integrates traditional epistemologies, but it also subjects them to intense analytical scrutiny including Bayesian analytics. Empiricism is necessary but insufficient to accomplish unification. A larger tapestry is required.

Elegant Reasonism brings a framework of processes, methods, and tools supporting a new epistemology required to perceive and engage the unified Universe. This framework and epistemology it supports are now patent pending 16405134. Acquiring an understanding of how Elegant Reasonism works and what it represents, costs nothing under our General Use License In fact we encourage everyone to engage this material and to share it as broadly as possible.

Do not allow past successes to blind you. In fact Elegant Reasonism has been specifically designed to exploit what it is we think we know and mode shift that thinking into alignment with the unified Universe. In the process it will illuminate incongruity and illustrate the path toward an ever more refined view of what unification means. As an Epistemology, Elegant Reasonism always seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Many old questions may have been answered by what we did, but now the real work is ahead of us. As with many things, answering a few difficult questions only serves to produce more challenges than we ever anticipated.

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Philosophy #Science #Epistemology #StatusQuo #Think #CriticalThinking #SituationalAwareness #TransformationalLeadership