Disruptive Technology

Unintended Consequences

Rhetorical as it may be, can you accomplish unification? We already know that you can not. How can we be so positive about such a statement? It sounds declaratory to many. More precisely what we know is that if your thinking is entrenched and otherwise uses as a basis the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) M1, then we know you can not because M1 can not. If M1 can not then no thinking based on it can. It’s just that simple. This argument has a mathematical basis in analysis. Historically the view has been the same as that articulated repeatedly by scientists: if it does not agree with experiment then your thought is wrong. The point that Elegant Reasonism makes is the other side of this same coin that makes the same point that Feynman makes in his video below: what happens if two theories are both simultaneously true and both agree with experiment? How do we philosophically integrate science such that these answers are forthcoming? After a systems review lasting from 2004 to the present day and after considering input from a considerable number of acknowledged investigators both historical and alive our considered answer to that question is Elegant Reasonism.

If it does not agree with experiment you're wrong
Feynman on experiment

We think the world of Feynman and he was one of the most preeminent scientists ever. The clarity of this thinking is renowned. We firmly believe that he, Einstein and others were just whispers away from realizing what ultimately became Elegant Reasonism.

 

Basis of Perception

We humans perceive reality because our senses allow us to experience reality. We may witness occurrences of cause and effect. Using something called root cause analysis we can link these phenomena together to form a chain of events establishing the relationships between them. What is not at all obvious are the interpretative elements involved in the full context of our Central Nervous System (CNS) providing our Brains with the abstractions needed to put labels on those events in order to articulate them to others. These were central themes investigated by Susanne K Laner in the 1940’s.

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

Perception is based in large part by our ability to discern material real objects and their behavior (e.g. interactions with other systems).  Rhetorically we ask what happens if we build into our instrumentality our assumptions about abstractions? Are we, as a civilization, more or less prone to commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs)?

In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact

The above presentation takes these issues into account and discusses the implications of the threshold of human perception, a few of the implications of commission of LEEs by global enterprise. Some implications are inconsequential and others insidiously waste shareholder investments, resources, capital, including human capital. Human Action across the global economy has always driven volatility, competition, inspiration, and entrepreneurial endeavor. What we now comprehend, at least some of us do, are the evidence chains linking that human action out to the unified Universe. The global marketplace is exceedingly Darwinian in its nature. Investors care about as much about your feelings as does the unified Universe.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Path to Epistemology

Elegant Reasonism has described a plausible characterization of the unified Universe across the entire entanglement gradient and Bang to Bang. That necessarily includes both the emergence and convergence vectors of that gradient. That necessarily requires characterizing how the organic is achieved from inorganic configurations of architectural mass. Right now all we are prepared to state is that there is a credible path to epistemology herein. Unification demands a tapestry a great deal larger than any single discipline and must include everything real no matter how restful it may be.

Epistemology Word Cloud
Epistemology (e.g. philosophy of knowledge)

Ensnared

If there is some ability to perceive the unified Universe and you do not possess it, then there is some capability or skill which you lack. If you can not link all real objects, through science, to the same geometric basis point then neither can the science you employ. The situation then is what you do about that. The real Universe is unified whether or not your thinking about it is. The unified Universe does not care if you do or do not perceive it. Do the core constructs of the EIM acting as the basis for your interpretation of reality even allow the possibility of gaining that precipice? We can tell you that none of the EIMs employing spacetime will ever close exactly because the interface between that [logically correct] construct and mass preclude it by a fairly famous equation needing no characterization here. Therein lay the insidious nature of some logic traps. They form iron shackles firmly ensnaring one’s mind exactly because they are logically correct and produce considerable successes. The one thing they can not do however, is close to unification and that is why we must consider unification as a philosophical predicate priority entering science. That’s why we must strive to eliminate and otherwise remove commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) from our critical thinking. Thinking which must also be critically situationally aware of which EIMs form the basis of any given assertion.

Encapsulation
Encapsulation

Encapsulation

Fundamental foundational context is established by encapsulation of core constructs exactly becuase those constructs are systemic in everything real. This is true whether we are talking about actual reality or an EIM reflecting it. The actual real Universe is unified whether or not your thinking is. What you do about your thinking is your business. All we can do is provide fodder for appropriate paradigm shifts. To bemuse an often over dramatized phrase: we can show you the door but you have to walk through it. Elegant Reasonism is designed to identify Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), illuminate them to illustration in order that they may be statistically weighted in context of a given investigation. We then recursively work the process and methods as necessary and appropriate in order to mode shift our perspective into alignment with the unified Universe.

Eye exam machine
Eye exam machine

Think about EIMs like the diopter device used by optometrists to discern prescriptions for eyeglasses. Elegant Reasonism rules are such that investigators must employ a plurality of EIMs which results in any given Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N) having multiple instantiated explanations interpretative manifestations, one for each EIM employed. The rules further state that at least one of the EIMs so employed must close to unification.

Use as many EIMs as you wish. At the moment we only have two EIMs which close: M5 and M6. Someone else might come up with another such model and when that time arrives that’s wonderful because Elegant Reasonism only becomes more powerful in that advent. Such an eventuality is welcome and actively sought out for what ought to be obvious reasons.

 

 

 

Optical Illusions
Can You Mentally Flip These At Will?

Lest you think all of this external to your physiology let’s try another experiment. Can you flip these plates over in your mind? This is a static image so the only trick is between your own ears. The challenge with this particular optical illusion is not flipping the plates to their opposite site, but doing it dynamically and at will. Can you do that? This is not a trivial exercise. It is a critical situationally awareness thinking skill. Being able to do this conversationally in a dynamic manner that allows you to articulate to others both points of view is the objective not just with this image, but with Elegant Reasonism and in context of your investigation.

Elegant Reasonism is Disruptive

Global enterprise be warned, Elegant Reasonism is disruptive and it is so exactly because of the perception boundaries which arise due to encapsulation. A few of the manifestations of this are outlined In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact alluded to above. The only strong business defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it better than your competition. Apathetic business leaders are going to find themselves at the mercy of competitors with pockets deep enough to mode shift assets out from under the feet of the original owner. Because the mode shifted iteration is not generally perceivable from the confines of entrenched status quo thinking it constitutes a net new IP asset and that means it can be refiled and assignment of that new asset now in alignment with the unified Universe may be assigned as a function of that effort. We’ll let your imagination run with that for awhile.

 

Shop Now

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification

 

McGowen

By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707