Knowing When & Why to Swim Upstream

We did not set off to accomplish unification in our original systems review, in fact we were working on something, we thought, something that was very far removed from that topic. In hindsight, we had no idea regarding the scope and depth unification required. This was so true at the time that we did not realize for over two years that we had accomplished unification and did not even realize it. That’s how strong denial sometimes is. Take BX442, for example. Can you link the relevance of that object to economic truths? It is a long restful and highly systemic chain to be sure, but it can be done. If you are a Newbie you quite probably believe that science in isolation can solve pretty much everything, but the real problems are much deeper than that. Here’s one strategic point: unification, as a concept, demands and requires the integration of everything real and that includes philosophy and science. Our approach has been to view philosophy as an over arching master piece of software and its constituent areas like subroutines or synchronized symbiotic constituents. When you hit a snag in a lower area its time to return to a higher order within the taxonomy for reconciliation.

Knowing vs Understanding In Unification’s Wake

If we have two theories call them A and B where both are simultaneously logically correct and both agree with experiment then in traditional science we have had no way to distinguish which theory is ‘right’. Which theory looks more ‘natural’ than the other. Don’t take our word for it. Listen to Richard P Feynman tell you exactly the same thing in a lecture from the 1950’s.

Elegant Reasonism now gives us additional tools to ask which of those theories close to unification and the processes and analytical frameworks to go along with those questions. It repositions quality management systems standards, Six Sigma calculations, and root cause analysis in full context of Elegant Reasonism which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. A decidedly different source of truth than traditional epistemologies.

The Tapestry of Unification

Unification demands an ability to illuminate and illustrate to full integration of everything real. Read that sentence recursively until the greater implications sink in. So you think unification is exclusively about theoretical astrophysics? If you do you could not be more wrong. Unification must include that to be sure, but it does not stop there. In fact it can be described as a tapestry inclusive of all domains of discourse and detail sets representing everything real.

Unification Integrates Everything Real

This is not a rule established by Elegant Reasonism it is an insight handed to us by the unified Universe. We simply have to cope with what it is telling us. One of the insights we realized, and we learned it from Feynman, is that if science can not distinguish a more correct answer to some theory, and we know there must be an answer (e.g. unification) then we must swim upstream. Historically science used to be called ‘the philosophy of nature’. Along with the advent of the laboratory and empirical experimental results something of a schism arose between philosophy and science. People gravitated to assertions that could be demonstrated and a hardened belief in empiricism was made manifest across the domain of discourse today we call science. We forgot that discipline’s roots.

The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was not officially formed professionally until 1990. As information sciences matured practitioners operating in stereotypically anthropogenic domains were accustomed to logical views of systems and could conversationally integrate them into discussions about integration into global enterprise and economic systems. Scientists on occasion would also use similar constructs in their respective disciplines. When McGowen recognized the implications of Albert Einstein‘s logical correctness circa 2006 the moment was a tacit and palpable benchmark in history for him. Yet others refused to believe it. They thought they were working directly with reality rather than logical views of it. It took years before Susanne K Langer‘s work and its implications came to bear on the topic of unification. Even then though there  remained challenges in sorting out the details. Not until Dr. Lev Okun‘s body of work was realized were we able to segregate M1 from M2 issues and establish the need to create an incremental, simultaneously logically correct model. Ultimately that model came to be called: The Emergence Model and keeping with Systems Engineering principles has two views M5 and M6 and it take both views to holistically represent what The Emergence Model is. In the fullness of time the distinctions between these EIMs will become clear. Right now just know that we focus on M5 and rarely discuss M6 for epistemological and technological maturity reasons.

Exactly because effective communications requires a common basis and almost no one was familiar with any of the process required to perceive and engage the unified Universe drove us into a position of having to take the path we did bringing this to civilization. The natural inclination is to expect a common context based on familial grounds and we were considerably downstream from there. We had to fight our way back up stream and find a way to articulate all of this consistent with the Realm of C’s. As it happens McGowen’s background began studying engineering, then information systems, education, knowledge management, marketing (with focuses on brand management and core messaging). Consequently, quite by accident, he was positioned to stub his toe on all of this. Today McGowen is CEO of SOLREI INC, but we digress. Part of the point being made is that McGowen was not vested in status quo theoretical astrophysics. He was superficially familiar with discussions but he was not particularly vested. As a result he was able to set certain concepts aside and ask more why questions than an irritating 5 year old. He was swimming upstream when he did certain that there had to be a reason behind the answers he was getting. Part of this story involves his tenure at IBM where he met hundreds if not thousands of people a great deal smarter than he is or was. One of those people was Benoit Mandelbrot. They crossed paths when Mandelbrot had already moved on to teaching but still maintained an IBM presence. After they both retired they stayed in occasional contact. The original systems review that spawned all this was trying to understand the dynamics of something now called Perimeters. The genesis of Perimeters was working to understand impact dynamics across the solar system. Many people just see craters, think ‘impact’, and move on. McGowen didn’t do that. He wanted more information than was available. Have you ever looked at a stereotypical crater anywhere in the solar system and wondered why it was wider than it was deep? The answer to that question was reconciled through The Emergence Model when two things happened. One was realizing the development of The Emergence Model. Out of that model came an understanding of the frangibility of architectural mass. The other was the need to establish unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Those insights cemented the Most Basic Particle (MBP) construct within The Emergence Model. When we take the MBP as a system, that necessary implies that everything real is two things: a system or system of systems and the other is a fractal consistent with Dr. Mandelbrot’s Fractal Geometry of Nature. I was honored to let Dr. Mandelbrot know shortly before his passing that all of this may likely mean that the unified Universe is a fractal. What an astounding man he was and because of his insights the original systems review notes have a memorial to him on page 7.

Recognizing the logical nature of Einstein’s work allowed McGowen to swim upstream and develop a net new inremental EIM which reconciled the inhibiting elements of the core constructs of M1 and M2 which could independently be assessed thanks to Okun and Langer. It took considerable time and effort to get past the schism that befell philosophy and science. In the end they were integrated. When they were it was ultimately recognized that Langer’s body of work created anchor points for evidence chains leading out to domains of discourse and detail sets as far removed from theoretical astrophyics as art appreciation. Ludwig von Mises body of work, exemplified by his treatise: Human Action did the same for economics. These points are made in support of the insight that unification demands an ability to integrate everything real. It is clear to this author that Elegant Reasonism does exactly that, but investigators must be prepared to swim upstream against the status quo in order to gain the precipice of the unified Universe so they too may see as they look.

We had to swim upstream in every sense of the phrase in developing Elegant Reasonism and we are not done yet, not by a long shot. We look forward to all of the derived insights all of this spawns from across civilization. We are poised to revolutionize what it is we all thought we knew. Your mode shifted insights are certain to be entreprenurial and we hope we have in some small way paved the road ahead. Do not be afraid to swim upstream if it is appropriate to do so. If we ultimately find that The Emergence Model is superseded (or joined by other logically correct EIMs which close to unification) then Elegant Reasonism is designed for that eventuality and will only be stronger and more capable. Sic’em….

Best!

Charles C McGowen, South Florida

Some background music you may find enjoyable as all these concepts congeal into cognizance.

__________________________________

Shop

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #ProblemSolving #Consulting #Mandelbrot #IBM #McGowen