Bus or the band wagon?Bus or the band wagon?

Wild Ducks Are Independent Entreprenurial Thinkers

Would you have suffered house arrest for the rest of your life for an idea you thought was correct? Such was the fate of one Galieleo Galilei. He was hauled before an inquisition where it was demanded of him to recant his published findings that the moons of Jupiter revolved around that planet. He had published a treatise on the subject based on observations he made through his telescope with his own eyes. Ultimately he passed away under house arrest in his home. It took the church which had imposed his sentence some 300 years to apologize. We’re thinking that didn’t help Galieleo very much.

The point of the cartoon above and this brief from history is this: We have a body of knowledge represented by modern science. Does any of that material close to reflect the unified Universe right now today? The answer to that question is: No, it does not. Unification demands that we be able to reflect everything real as a function of a single cogent agent. If you can not reflect on how a given scenario is enabled and subsequently instantiated by the unified Universe then you have work to do and Elegant Reasonism is the epistemology supported by a utility process employing a framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe specifically designed for exactly that purpose.

The band wagon may be logically correct but nothing they do, or have done, closes to unification. Do you understand why? Elegant Reasonism can help you figure that out. It’s just that simple. Are you going with the band wagon or are you going into new territory to stake out your claim in undiscovered territories?

Q: Can you represent everything real manifesting from one single cogent paragraph?

After accomplishing unification we set out to reverse engineer exactly that paragraph. Today that paragraph is the cogent description of M5. From this paragraph we can now reflect the entire unified Universe Bang to Bang. Everything real across the entire entanglement gradient may have its manifestation instantiated from this one logically correct paragraph. The original systems review mode shifts over 400 mathematical equations. Explore those notes and this website. We are not going to tell you how to interpret any of this. We simply look for congruence with what is. So, as you look at that cogent paragraph, know that we didn’t just sit down and write that. It was reverse engineered from a systems review lasting more than a decade. The point is it is not declaratory in nature, it was made manifest by a great deal of hard work, discipline and rigor. How did we do all that? The answer is that we followed what is now called Elegant Reasonism.

So, while you may not be able to do what this question asks, but we did and it is all right here at your finger tips to explore if you have the courage, will, persistence, and perseverance to do so.

Q: Can you articulate how any real object can transition the spacetime-mass interface without conversion to energy?

The answer to this is no and is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. It does not matter how much energy you pump into a system, this will never happen under an EIM employing these core constructs exactly because of the philosophical nature in which they are employed and the relationships they create. What is behind this question ultimately reintegrates philosophy and science because we are forced to ultimately conclude the logical nature of these relationships. Cognition of this insight reveals all the reasons we have never been able to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every reference frame. Those reasons are also why no reference frame prior to The Emergence Model was capable of being fully coupled.

Epic and awesome as this may be to theoretical scientists is that all of this does not stop with that one domain of discourse. Once we realize that unification means – the unification of everything real – we are then forced to comprehend those other linkages and they are well beyond the boundaries of physics. Information science again comes to the rescue with something called REpresentational State Transfer or REST. Susanne K Langer‘s body of work shows us the implications of symbolic abstraction relative to reality. Lev B Okun‘s work distinguishes M1 from M2. We just connected the dots across the entanglement gradient.

Q: Physicists directly with reality! Why is this all not just malarky and B.S.?

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

So, no physicists do not work directly with reality. They work with labels reflecting some logical association to something real and to improve definitions of those abstractions reflecting reality and that distinction matters a great deal. What we must do is recognize the logical nature of that fine line, distinction, and relationship – then design specific processes and tools with exactly that problem in mind. We will also say that is exactly what Elegant Reasonism was designed to deal with. Not until we directly integrate abstraction management into the various processes and disciplines can we effectively cope with the systemic issues and assure ourselves we are not committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Select any real object near you right now. Place it in front of you in relative isolation to remove unwanted distractions. Now take a piece of paper and list as many different labels for that object as possible. Keep going until you can not think of any more labels.  Now, out of that list, pick the single lable which represents ‘the’ reality of that object such that it eliminates all others in your list. Does your selection reflect actual real reality of the unified Universe or is it just another label? This exercise points out the logical nature we are dealing with. What we need is a system specifically designed to drive reflection of the unified Universe beyond limitations associated with human physiology.

Q: Science epistemologically employs Empiricism [today], the laboratory and experiments within the scientific method to produce repeatable results – why is that not enough?

Part of the answer to this question is philosophical perspective. If you are deep in the woods you are likely looking at trees rather than the forest. We wrote sometime ago about such issues in the article post: LEEs Empiricism Trap. Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism is a superset epistemology because it takes the other epistemologies into its processes but statistically weights their perspectives relative to and respective of the unified Universe. If their insights do not close, then more work needs doing. If they can not reflect all that is real, then there is more work needing doing. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Traditional epistemologies have different sources of truth.

Q: Are you blinded by success?

Status quo thinking relative to many of the sciences employs the most successful model ever designed to reflect reality. The problem is that model (e.g. M1) does not, nor will it ever, close to unification. The issue then is what to do about that. Our response to that was to design Elegant Reasonism. We must not sit on our laurels. We must deal with challenges by mustering great intripidity and mettle enough to meet them head on. The hard question here was in asking ‘why’ status quo thinking does not close and in answering that question we found the answer in the historical schism originally dividing philosophy and science as a function of our own human physiology. For that reason unification is a set of criteria demanding predicate priority consideration entering science, not after we are already within the philosophy of nature (e.g. science).

Q: Why won’t status quo thinking accomplish unification?

The short answer is because the core constructs of the model preclude achieving that objective. It’s just that simple. Those core constructs manifest an interface between them across which nothing real survives. It creates logical relationships which can not be reconciled in the real world.

Q: Does that mean we live in a virtual world? How does that relate to computer games?

The virtual gaming world, much of which is fantasy, employs the exact same equations as do physicists so what’s the difference?  The difference is the values allowed to be plugged into those formulas. Scientists seek out values reflecting actual reality and online game players and the programmers creating those realms seek out values which enable their avatar to have powers exceeding those of other characters (e.g. fake values). The equations in both realms though are similar if not exactly the same. That insight should also tell you something about the strategic clue realized in the logical correctness which Einstein developed the body of his work. What Einstein created was absolutely 100% logically correct, but therein lay the strategic clue necessary to gain the precipice of unification. In realizing that insight however, required philosophical recognition of that logical nature entering science. That insight required information sciences and systems engineering to reconcile.

Q: Has all this been peer reviewed?

A: Who else on Earth has ever accomplished unification? Who else on Earth has pulled together the multidisciplinary set of people to review unification criteria such that it is capable of manifesting everything real? We don’t know who those people are. What we can say is that we have had professional scientists, engineers, academics, philosophers, and others to review our material and not one could break the model and most reported that no one else on Earth would ever be able to prove it wrong. Consequently we openly invite everyone on Earth to engage this website, and the material we are working to integrate here. To us, that means opening it up for everyone to engage, not compartmentalizing it to a few academics exactly because those academics have for over 100 years failed to accomplish unification. That failure certifies their credentials relative to the question asked. Because of this situation we mode shifted The Baloney Detection Kit. Moving past that problem we are still faced with the challenge of articulating all of this to civilization. We are striving to be able to instantiate an interactive system to articulate unification to civilization. We have a massive effort in front of us. We have only just begun and have barely scratched anything much less the surface. That said, we have accomplished much. There is a great deal of information here for people to engage.

Q: How do you know Elegant Reasonism is correct (e.g. right)?

There are several factors which lead to high confidence regarding Elegant Reasonism. We need to remember that Elegant Reasonism is the process employed which resulted in the first fully compliant EIM which closes to unification: The Emergence Model. Elegant Reasonism is the process and the result was The Emergence Model. It is The Emergence Model which closes to unification. Elegant Reasonism is how we got there. Once we understand that we must remember that Elegant Reasonism rules 1) require a plurality of EIMs, 2) at least one of those EIMs must close to unification, and 3) there is no rule stating that the EIM employed satisfying #2 be The Emergence Model. If someone else can come up with a better model that also closes to unification in a fully compliant manner then that net new model may be used to satisfy that requirement. What would likely be more powerful however would be to employ both that new model and The Emergence Model in juxtaposition in order to illuminate and illustrate new insights. Acquiring a net new model which also closes to unification only serves to make Elegant Reasonism more powerful than it already is, it will never weaken what it enables.

Having made those points we then look at reconciliation of problems and challenges across science. Many of those are discussed In Unification’s Wake, part 01: Stereotypical Questions. We reconciled (to our satisfaction) a large number of issues which holistically led to our high confidence:

  • Drake Equation & Fermi Paradox is reconciled in many ways. One is that life is likely common everywhere but interstellar travel is highly improbable. The list of potential Dyson Spheres in the Kepler data confirms this insight. Supernovae eject large masses into the interstellar medium which would not be detectable until it was too late for any vehicle traveling at high Rapidity levels. Any vehicle attempting such a journey would need to reconcile where the destination would be at exceedingly far off time intervals because of the relatively low velocities allowing for dealing with random objects that may be encountered. Computational navigation would need to be flawless because if you miss, after potentially eons on a given journey, there is no turning back or do over. Your proverbial goose is cooked. You are on that vector for eternity.
  • A plethora of insights involving black holes. Under the cogent description of M5, all mass is architectural in nature and was made manifest by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. One implication of this definition is that all architectural mass is, under the right circumstances: frangible. That is to say that the object representing that architectural mass must suffer energies exceeding the Severance values for that system or Event Frame. Ultimately this insight led directly to being able to describe our part of the unified Universe Bang to Bang.
  • Another factor is the totality of congruence while simultaneously satisfying the requirements of unification (i.e. common geometric basis and an ability to fully couple reference frames). We call that capability ‘dove tailing‘. Holistically Elegant Reasonism reconciles many age old questions, but in the process raises new questions. Then much in science does that.
  • Developing a net new fully compliant EIM only makes the process stronger and increases accuracy and resolution of insights.\
  • Tweaking constituents within any given model are fodder for iterations of that EIM (or potentially the need for a net new EIM). Either way the process will step up to those investigative challenges and problem sets.
  • When we reconcile the many issues, articulated elsewhere within the body of work this website reflects, the unified Universe becomes unfathomably ancient and vast in the extreme. There is ample time for complex galaxies to form and material transfer resulting what we witness presently.

Q: How does this process enable anything? I don’t recognize how that is accomplished.

This situation is common with many people, most especially those whose thinking is immersed and otherwise entrenched in commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). If you believe abstractions are real constructs then you are likely lost, entrenched and otherwise ensnared by LEEs. We strongly encourage you to review your personal paradigms to see if you can move not only left to right across the Generalized Process but upper left to lower right of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart.  Once you realize the intrinsically logical nature of these constructs your mind is quite liberated to employ other EIMs and how they might instantiate a given Paradigm Of Interest/Nature (POI/N).


Related Posts






#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Epistemology #Philosophy #Science #Empiricism #Axiology #Ontology #Supervenience


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