RelationshipsRelationships & Patterns

Patterns and Relationships

Funny thing about unification is that it requires the capability to credibly manifest everything real, no matter how restful. When we begin looking at concepts like relationships and patterns, usually because we are considering evidence chains and their various anchor points, relative to truth as a function of the unified Universe our perspective changes rather dramatically. Those requirements demand recursively looping through various sections of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart in order to execute the utility process as enable mode shifting through the framework in order to support the epistemology.

The tendency to compartmentalize physical vs virtual vs mental in the full context of compliant unification is irrelevant and erroneous. When we say ‘manifest everything real’ we mean simultaneously. That requirement forces us to think about systemic relationships, in the case of M5, from MBPs all the way up and to Black Holes and everything in between – without exception. That requirement necessarily includes us. What that means is that we are required to integrate Central Nervous System (CNS) action potentials driving signals to the brain (across all Brodmann Areas) and the resulting neural pathway patterns. The good news in all of this is NNRP.   We can ask why this pattern or that pattern exists and therein we may layer into that discussion culture, life experiences, etc but we have credible linkage enabled by those action potentials to EMCS01 Action Principles.  The taxonomy we use is to compartmentalize major domains of discourse and establish constituent detail sets within each. The challenge then is that all domains of discourse must also merge as a function of unification as well. These issues are not trivial nor trite. This is why the information sciences concept of REpresentational State Transfer (REST) is helpful as is the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK).

If we step back and noodle on all this for a minute ultimately we must consider how signals traverse Event Frames EIM to EIM. If a given set of ideas are based on an EIM which 1) does not close to unification and 2) has any set of logic artifacts, incongruousness, concept compression issues, etc. then we must set that EIM aside in favor of an EIM which does close. Having said that, EIMs which do not close are useful in so much as they may well be entrenched with large work efforts behind them. The point is that mode shifting what it is we already think we know is easier than coming at all this completely from scratch. Problems and challenges can effectively be encircled and mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe.

Why Context Matters

Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish fundamental, foundational, context for interpreting everything real and because they do, they are highly systemic. What that means is that those concepts are constituents within almost every, if not every, higher ordered construct known to science. Science since even before it was called that has been considered the philosophy of nature. Many today have forgotten those roots and have essentially fallen into LEEs Empiricism Trap. Ardent defenders of the modern laboratory will no doubt strengthen the shackles they wear by circling their wagons around empiricism never realizing the implications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) hold for them.

The point in this section is not so much about what a given EIM can or can not accomplish, rather the point is about what a given EIM can perceive or not perceive and why that is so. If there is no mechanism philosophical or otherwise, then there is no chance to engage it in experimentation. All you know is that something is happening and one tries to rationalize why it happened. It is akin to knowing there is some particle there but nothing works to measure it. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle comes into full play there, for example.

I can list some EIMs here, for example: M1, M2, M4, M5, and M6. Then tell you absolutely nothing about any of them. I can then tell you that EIMs M1 and M2 will never close to unification because their core constructs preclude it. I can then tell you that EIMs M5 and M6 are fully compliant and do close to unification. I can also then tell you that we can isotropically apply ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards to all of these EIMs to the same level and degree and the characterization here will not change. There would, presumably, be immediately be consequences and conclusions on your part regarding all the conclusions based on any particular EIM in that original list. The interesting challenge then comes when we ask which set of EIMs most modern scientists and engineers operate under. If you said the latter set rather than the former set you would be wrong. Most today operate under the first EIM in that original list, not either of the last two.

The question then become what insights exist that are made manifest from the latter set of EIMs which the former sets can not perceive and all the reasons and implications for those various domains of discourse and their constituent detail sets. This, is the challenge facing civilization right now. Exactly because different EIMs have different foundational concepts and constructs all of which manifests simultaneous truths across Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) any given investigation team may explore, the sets of implications change EIM to EIM. That concepts from one are completely obfuscated to all other EIMs due to encapsulation only exacerbates these issues for science for all the reasons Richard P Feynman points out in this video:


What scientists find incredibly difficult to do is swim back Upstream into philosophy for their answers. The reasons why are briefly discussed in LEEs Empiricism Trap.


Supervenience is the philosophy of order and prioritization. Part of the reason this philosophy must be mode shifted is exactly because as a general rule major delineations of EIMs are not perceptible EIM to EIM. Rhetorically we ask how can you rank, order, and prioritize factors which you can not perceive? The answer is you can’t. That’s another reason that the framework is layered as it is and the rules of encapsulation change layer to layer. Encapsulation rules are strictly adhered to in the 2D Articulation Layer but may be compared analytically in subsequent layers. Why is that? The answer is only there can we back away and expose the manifestation of the relative and respective Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N) in naked juxtaposition. Only there in those subsequent analytical layers are the reasons for different modes of supervenience fully exposed. It is for these reasons as well driving the reasons behind using the term ‘mode’ referring to the pattern changes EIM to EIM. Entirely different modes of thought must be engaged and absent the utility process of Elegant Reasonism articulating insight distinctions EIM to EIM would be incredibly difficult if not outright impossible.


Go and study the Elegant Reasonism Rules and you will find that once a model is declared it can not be changed, only iterated. Why is that? Humans are tweakers. What is lost when we tweak are whole realms of impact due to systemic ripples up through pattern chains of evidence across the entanglement gradient. What we gain when we enforce encapsulation is the ability to place those systemic ripples into juxtaposition within the analytical framework of Elegant Reasonism.

Why Relationships and Patterns Change

Here is a rhetorical question. Do you believe the concept of mass is variant or invariant? Many people today would say that mass is variant and Einstein‘s famous equation demonstrates that. If that’s true it would likely be expected then that Einstein himself would believe that too, right? But did he believe that was true? The answer to that question is no he did not. Einstein believed mass was invariant not variant. He thought it was more important to treat those variability factors separately. Dr. Lev B Okun, a Russian particle physicist did a great job sorting out the history and physics behind all of this. Part of the point here is these distinctions are essentially the differences between M1 and M2. Whether or not you realized any of this is not the point. The point is that it does not matter which you believe nor does that history for this particular discussion. The hard cold fact is that the spacetime-mass interface fundamentally precludes unification exactly because nothing real can transition that interface without first conversion to energy thus preventing and precluding the use of a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. We are therefore forced to seek and employ an EIM where those core constructs manifest philosophical conditions conducive to unification as a predicate priority consideration. Our quest for that particular objective motivated our original systems review. The results were the development of Elegant Reasonism, The Emergence Model and accomplishing unification.

The question remains however, why to relationships and patterns change. Part of that answer lay in how those factors manifesting distinctions EIM to EIM are treated within those various EIMs are different. Under The Emergence Model for example we know next to nothing about complex composite architectures of mass save they are generally construed to follow knot theory. The problem there is that Knot Theory characterizes knots by how many times their string segments cross one another. Different configurations having the same number of crossings are said to be invariant. Walking up the gradients then of numbers of crossings we find ever increasing complexities and ultimately the knots become composites fairly quickly in that they also contain lower ordered knots already configured. It does not take far up this list to find that the number of permutations of knots exceeds 3.205E+33 and those are only just barely scratching the surface of possibilities. We know knot configurations go orders of magnitude higher along that vector and the permutations then become more than just astronomical. So, when we say that understanding how the architectures of mass manifest physical properties it is that environment into which we just jumped and that’s another reason relationships and patterns change. For these reasons the utility process, framework, the epistemology they support which together are Elegant Reasonism takes into account considerations like heuristics should come as no surprise.

So these are just a few issues making pushing the envelope complex. This environment is also why we keep pushing the National Science Foundation on the subject of needing an R&D platform likely an order of magnitude more powerful than Summit (which is currently one of the most powerful computers on Earth) and for reasons we will not get into here quantum computers are not the solution. Simply put, we have never successfully mode shifted them. Our conclusion is they constitute red herrings. See In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions, In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact, and elsewhere in our network presence. If you need to understand these issues in greater detail and would like a consulting engagement to better understand these issues please contact us. What we can articulate at this juncture is that we are very busy building up the infrastructure to help civilization cope with unification and if you wish to distract us from that mission with a consulting engagement we can do that for you but it will be expensive. Please don’t bother us with trivial questions or pursuits. That’s why we are developing this network presence. As all of this matures it will become patently obvious why Elegant Reasonism matters to every SIC code in the global economy.

The short answer why M5 can not be perceived from within M1 or M2 is simple: the fundamental foundational context is different creating a philosophical barrier that, at that level, is impenetrable. Essentially what happens is thinking which can not close to unification gets caught up in its nickers. Elegant Reasonism has been specifically designed to sort all that out and to seek truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. The path forward is clear. We can only suggest that the meek are about to meet the intrepid. Those maverick among us will lead transformationally. The only question is which kind are you?







#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #UnifiedUniverse #EIM #Patterns #Relationships #Summit #GlobalEconomy #NSF #Computing #InformationScience #SystemsEngineering #SIC

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: