Helen Keller - I am only oneHelen Keller - I am only one

Helen Keller Was Blind But That Never Stopped Her

Worse Than Being Blind
Worse Than Being Blind

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Do you know what problem Einstein was working on when he developed General and Special Relativity? Here’s a clue, it was not unification.  He was attempting to explain why recent interferometer experiments all reported the same velocity for the speed of light. It didn’t matter how their device was oriented nor what time of year it was (e.g. the position of the Earth in its orbit around our star: Sol. The velocity for the speed of light was always the same. The EIM he developed (e.g. M2) was absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. Over the intervening years his model was tested recursively and in every case the logical correctness of its integrity was solidified and strengthened. There is just one small problem with what he accomplished. It does not close to unification. Many believe that if they just try harder, put more energy into their experiments, throw more money at their research, build bigger and better experiments that the answer will be forthcoming. We are saddened to report that, no that won’t be the result if you do all those things. Not that we are trying to rain on anyone’s parade but neither M1 nor M2 will ever close to unification no matter what you do nor how hard you try. The reason is simple: the core constructs conspire to create the spaceime-mass interface which no real object can transition without first converting to energy which precludes the use of a real geometric basis point in any or all real reference frames for all real objects inside such a frame. You can cite any experiment you like it won’t change that hard cold fact. It does not matter how successful any of those experiments have been. The exactitude of their success has more to do with the logical correctness of the EIM than it does the underpinning intrinsic nature and therein lay the critical issue.

Sharpening Your Ax

There is an old story about two lumberjacks. They were both of equal stature and capability and both were paid by the tree. They both started at the same time and worked the same amount of hours. One would naturally expect them to cut down pretty much the same number of trees, but that was not the case. When asked why one lumberjack was more successful than the other, that lumberjack simply reported – I stopped periodically to sharpen my ax and rest, he did not. There is a video here we have used is so many other posts here that we are not going to repeat using it again. There Richard P Feynman discusses knowing vs understanding and makes the point that if two theories have all consequences the same and agree with experiment that there is in science no way to discern which theory, at that level, is better or ‘right’. He is correct about that, but now we have new tools in the tool box.

What Fails to Mode Shift?

The answer to that question so far is everything we have tried does mode shift. Below is a simplex list of concepts that mode shift not just from M1 or M2 to M5 but vice versa as well. As you look down this list there will be domains of discourse that at first glance appear to be out of place. Remember, unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real. That requirement is a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse or constituent detail set. That means that if you are a theoretical astrophysist and you can not 1) close to unification, 2) credibly link restful subjects then you have work to do. When we say everything we don’t just mean everything on Earth, we mean everything on every planet around every star in the unified Universe.

These domains of discourse mode shift. Some concepts below are nested within others. Acknowledgements are too numerous to mention here but are on that page or by virtue of inclusion in the User Library. The list below is exemplary and not intended to be all inclusive. They do represent key investigative areas from our original systems review, again that review may have tested more than what is listed here. This list is for illustrative purposes only. Also see Emergence Model Concept Sieves. To one degree or another all of these concepts successfully mode shift. That means to our satisfaction. Others may want to develop a full ISO 9001 Quality Mangement Systems (QMS) standards treatment of these areas for academic purposes. Our objectives were business centric.

A comprehensive list would necessarily encompass the entire unified Universe.

Impossible Here Might Be There

Clues pointing at the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe are replete across not just science but philosophy. Indeed intrinsic to unification is the credible reintegration of science and philosophy. That was one reason we had to mode shift the Baloney Detection Kit. Declarative statements whose intrinsic basis emerges from an EIM that can not close to unification should be considered with great skepticism, no matter how much experimental data there may be. What is required in those circumstances is a need to mode shifting that evidence and data from those experiments. Confusion over the speed of light is a great example. Where M1 limits the speed of light due to interferometer data Elegant Reasonism is able to mode shift such that those limitations are completely dismantled supporting existing experiments that found the speed of entanglement upwards of 54 times the speed of light with expectations for far higher rapidities.

There is a very cautionary point in all of this. Discussion participants should all be familiar with insights derived from these processes. They should also be familiar with the utility process, framework and epistemology in order to justify those insights. Absent the means to derive those insights they will be rejected by deniers who do not comprehend unification or how it was accomplished. Enterprise management and team leaders everywhere should recognize that individuals highly vested in status quo positions of understanding will very likely have to transition through industry standard stages of grief dealing and coping with these paradigm shifts. Consequently we can not encourage strongly enough to wield M5 transformationally with great empathy and compassion.

Unification Defies Knowledge Compartmentalization

Unification demands a credible capability to manifest everything real. Read that previous sentence recursively until full comprehension begins to dawn on the implications. There is no better example for why a multidisciplinary approach is needed for education curricula. There is no better example than the fact that Susanne K Langer‘s insights regarding mistaking abstractions for reality were in a book about art appreciation and it was key to accomplishing unification. Reintegration of philosophy and science were also needed in order to recognize the need to consider unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there for all the reasons Richard P Feynman cites in this 1950’s lecture on knowing vs understanding:



Knowledge Management (KM)

There is now a requirement that KM be completely immersed within Elegant Reasonism. The reasons are:

  • Insights are not necessarily perceivable EIM to EIM, therefore in order to justify insights isotropically the utility process, framework and epistemology must be comprehended in order to establish insight justification to all relevant and appropriate parties. Also see our various presentations.
  • The knowledge taxomony we employed considers any given domain of discourse to include one or more detail sets comprising specialty areas of study or pursuit. Presuming any given area is presented employing an EIM basis which can not close to unification is damaging to the student, the institution, and to society at large. Civilization can do better than that.
    • Arrogance is declaring logical correctness as ‘defining reality’ but within a detail set or its domain of discourse that is logically correct but can not close in a fully compliant manner. Committing such an error egregiously violates Elegant Reasonism epistemologically.
  • Just because something is logically correct does not necessarily mean it characterizes reality. For example, the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) suggests that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. It also suggests that reality has two views a logical view and a real view which many construe to be physical (which confuses many foks but we’ll talk about all that another time). The point is that we expected M1 and M2, to have a corresponding real view which was originally designated M3. What we never expected was for M3 to die utterly and be supplanted by M6. Consequently what we actually have is a real view, labeled herein M6 which logically supports M1, M2, M4, and M5 simultaneously. The only real importances in that insight is that out of that list only M5 and M6 close to unification.

Do Not Be Blinded by Success

Civilization has committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) for far too long. It is time to shed those old views and embrace a capability where pluralistic juxtaposition of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) compete analytically for the best characterization of the unified Universe. Today we have about eight of these models M0 through M7. How they are enumerated is irrelevant. Out of that list, today, only two close. At some point in the future there may be ten, twenty, or a hundred that close. If they do then Elegant Reasonism only becomes that much more powerful than it already is. Do not allow the logical correctness of M1 or M2 to lull you into complacency lest you find yourself committing LEEs and succumb to LEEs Empiricism Trap. It is necessary but insufficient for a given EIMs constituent concepts to all dovetail, every facet must also be fully compliant with the realm of c’s, one of which is closure.

Entrepreneurial Spirit Drives Innovation

The notion that institutionalizing innovation history has repeatedly shown to be a patently false assumption. You can not mandate innovation if for no other reason than it usually comes from someone other than the leader. Elegant Reasonism came from business, not R&D, not academia and not from the global 2000 largest enterprises on Earth. It came from small entrepreneurial enterprise. Having said that we clearly acknowledge that we cut our teeth working for Fortune 50 companies, but that was decades ago. The reason our application begins with an excerpt from a Federalist Paper is no accident. Helen Keller was an entrepreneur that would not be silenced. The founding fathers pledging their efforts and wealth in order to forge the crucibles of liberty and freedom that are the United States clearly recognized the need to clear the decks of obfuscation, restrictions, and compartmentalization that stifle creativity. Elegant Reasonism is designed to be open ended. It demands a pluralistic approach. All it asks is compliance with what is. It helps that we grow and recognize our being. Ironically what is, reinforces knowledge of itself through NNRP. Which may be put to good or less than that purposes. While we must clearly retain focus and defend liberty at all costs we must never forget that axiological value is determined by the unified Universe if only because it is the ultimate source of truth.




Register for Free Access to the User Library

Please also subscribe and like the videos we have posted on the SolREI Studios channel on YouTube.





#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #UnifiedUniverse #KnowlegeManagement #BlindedBySuccess #LogicTraps #ConceptCompression #RedShift #BlueShift

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