Whose Foot Has That Shoe?

Carl Sagan wrote a book entitled The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark in which he articulated his Baloney Detection Kit which we mode shifted. Have you ever listened to the technobabble on some science fiction show? They throw out buzz words every few seconds, some of them are discussed in peer reviewed journals just to make everything else they say sound authentic and useful. Some of the vitriol directed at us labels us that way. But why is what we did not technobabble or gobbledygook? That’s a fair question and the reasons it is not will deftly take that shoe and put it on your foot, not ours. Why? Because we can mode shift material into alignment with the unified Universe and you can’t do that. At least not until you learn how this all works. Then you will likely kick our ass using our process, framework, and epistemology which is just fine with us. Go for it. Our objective is to show you guys how to do this so you can do this too.

Note to Practitioners of Physics

If you think you are working directly with reality – think again. If you actually think that then you are committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). If you mistake those abstractions for actual reality then you are making a fatal epistemological error in your thinking. This mistake will impact absolutely everything you do and how you interpret every fact in every study or experiment. Something may be logically correct yet remain physically different. When we first began our original systems review what we expected was M3 to support either M1 or M2. What we found was both being logical in their nature. The very last thing we expected was any need to go any further but such a finding demanded we do so. What we did not expect was the realization that what Albert Einstein created to be logically correct such that it provided the strategic clue needed to recognize the precipice allowing us to perceive and engage the unified Universe. The realization that Einstein’s work was logically correct consumed our time from 2004 through the present day. We poured everything we had into this pursuit. The hit parade just kept coming. Never in our wildest imaginations would we have ever expected M3 to be completely invalidated and supplanted by M6. Such investigations can be entertained via M4. Then we realized that no one on Earth had the slightest understanding about the implications of architectural mass as defined by M5 and we’ve been pounding the National Science Foundation ever since attempting to explain why we needed an R&D computing platform that was orders of magnitude greater in power than Summit (currently the most powerful unclassified system on our planet). M5 is generally construed to follow Knot Theory. Just looking at some of the simplest knots possible yields 3.205E+33 permutations of configurations and we need to consider much more complex configurations in order to discern how physical properties are made manifest for even the most simple of constructs.

So if you are a scientist or studying to be one – what we did here is spot on point with what you are trying to accomplish. There can be no more direct approach to understanding the unified Universe than Elegant Reasonism. That is what it was designed to do and we are putting it in your hands on a silver platter. What you do with this is entirely up to you.

Neils Bohr abstractions — Neils Bohr on abstractions

Everyone Wants The Expert To Magically Appear and Declare

When we started the original systems review another aspect we absolutely did not expect was to have to reintegrate philosophy and science. Not one of either of those things but all of both of them. We had to delve into Philosophy itself and then into disciplines of Axiology, Epistemology, Ontology, The philosophy of nature (e.g. Science), and Supervenience. Then we had to look at historical evidence not just in and across our User LIbrary which has considerable samples throughout history, but across the solar system. Elegant Reasonism because it seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe there is no domain of discourse or constituent detail set that it does not touch in some manner even if only restfully. So we rhetorically ask who exactly on Earth do you think that expert is? You think those specialists in a particular domain of discourse or constituent detail set at some famous university are disappointed? Imagine our disappointment when people see what we’ve done and hate us for having done it before they did. We have lost count of how many people we have encountered that were committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and got angry just because we tried to explain what they were. So our benchmark stake in the ground is this website. No one anywhere can deny we did it because we have an application with the USPTO that proves beyond any doubt we were the ones that did it, and that is true even if the USPTO denies our application on some technical point. The fact that we applied when we did and they acknowledge that application is enough to cement for all eternity that we did this. Our challenge now is articulating what we did and helping as many as possible gain the precipice allowing them to perceive and engage the unified Universe. Everything else is up to you guys. We’re tired. This was hard beyond description. Consequently we are bemused by all the people who look at our corporate pages before they ever try and understand what we are saying to anyone. Even if you saw a name there what is it that thinks you would recognize it? Every notable person that might be named is entrenched in M1 or M2 thinking. Noodle on that for a minute. If they knew what we know, they would have filed the application and not us. They didn’t and we did. They didn’t conduct that original systems review, we did.

Getting Familiar with the New Terminology

Here are the reasons why what we did is not gobbledygook nor technobabble:

Yes we really did accomplish unification.
1. The cogent description of M5 does not employ the same core constructs as M1, M2, or M3 and as a direct result many of the resulting issues those EIMs have simply vanish completely. So far 100% of every test we’ve done completely reconciles every test thrown at it. Don’t take our word for it do your own investigation. Everything you need to get started is online now!
2. The cogent description of M5 was reverse engineered during the original systems review after more than a decade of work. The hard cold fact is that M1, M2, nor M3 can craft any such description much less accomplish unification.
3. The cogent description of M5 enables the use of a common geometric basis point manifested by its core construct’s intrinsic nature through architectures of mass.
4. The cogent description of M5 enables fully coupling all real objects to all fundamental forces in every Event Frame instantiated by the action of core constructs therein.
5. The cogent description of M5 credibly enables characterization of everything real while simultaneously eliminating Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) consistent with Elegant Reasonism Rules and is fully compliant with the realm of c’s.
6. The cogent description of M5 credibly mode shifts EMCS01, EMCS02, and EMCS03 and every subsequent test we have thrown at it. Test it yourself. We dare you.
7. The cogent description of M5 survived over 60 Thought Experiments.
8. We have two main categories of presentations to help others understand what we did and how we did it:
  1. Elegant Reasonism Introduction and Overview
  2. In Unification’s Wake
Our original systems review tied as many concepts we could find out to real problems others were having in science and reconciled every single one we tested. We not only found what we were looking for we found a great deal we could never have fathomed and candidly didn’t want to believe it when we did find it, but we were compelled because of mode shifting the evidence.
We have placed everything online in as transparent & integrated a manner as is possible for everyone on Earth to review to their satisfaction and anyone may contact us if they find anything wrong or requiring additional explanation. It literally is the largest possible peer review team possible and nothing is held back, nor do we arbitrarily think anyone can not understand what we are saying if they work at it. Einstein once said that if you can not explain something simply enough you do not understand it well enough. We work hard to try and keep things simple. But if you want complex, we can certainly entertain that as well EMCS01: Concept 0235 for example. We have minimally placed our original systems review notes online in this fashion and we are working as hard as we can to get them fully integrated into our network presence. We are few, you guys are many and so it may take us some time to make that happen unless more resources are more forthcoming. In the meantime we’ll do the best we can with what we have.
The original systems review spent many years reviewing over 400 equations, 60+ physical properties, and more testing every single one to see if they could be mode shifted and to our surprise they all did and without exception. From these we created a concept we call Concept Sieves comprised of these various investigative groupings and today we have three major sieves enumerated as: EMCS01, EMCS02, and EMCS03. Please understand that when we say they mode shifted, we don’t mean one at a time. They all mode shift simultaneously and remain dovetailed in the new EIM context. Every Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N) we tested mode shifted in this manner consistent with the utility process and survived the analytical rigor and discipline of the framework. All of which is here online for your review. Duplicate our work if you wish. If you find something we did wrong then contact us and we will look into it. Everything online is completely referenceable back to us but to each other.
We were forced to create some new terminology as is often true of anything brand new. The reason we did was no one had ever done what we did before and we had to find simple ways to refer to those tasks and concepts. But we explain everything in as clear and concise manner as is possible. In fact we used words like cogent, clear, concise so often we just grouped them all together and refer to them fairly often as the realm of c’s. Students will know that one of those ‘c’ words is Close or Closure and there we mean close to unification. When we say realm of c compliant we mean compliant with every single c word in that list without exception.
Numerous FAQ pages are available on our network presence and searchable. if you see something that should be added somewhere let us know using the Contact Us page. We have more work to do than we will ever get to with current resources so we would appreciate legitimate suggestions only. Please don’t waste our time with B.S. Also, know that we have no intention of mode shifting every subject known to science. We are a small company and are working to mode shift enough examples that others can do the same for their areas of interest. Our objective is to provide examples not an encyclopedia.
Yes we can explain why status quo not only does not, but can not, nor will it ever accomplish unification. The reason is simple. The core constructs, while logically correct and congruent within specific domains of discourse and constituent detail sets as defined by knowledge management, they preclude reconciling requirements of unification. Philosophically they always will and so there is zero accomplished by throwing more money, time, people, resources or effort into any of that trying to accomplish unification. Why that is true can be stated very simply: Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. That equation and similar equations are part of EMCS01 and you may review them there.

People keep telling us that there will always be haters out there and intellectually we know that, but we strive to learn what we can from everyone and to do the best we can with what we have and to do better if and when we can. We do appreciate your help. The best way you can help us right now is to sign up for our newsletter and share it far and wide. You can also share links back into our website. Please also take note that we have White Papers available in PDF format that are also linked back into the website but may be shared independently. The more people we have percolating on all of this the faster civilization will learn, adapt and leverage the unified Universe.

Sic’em

Still Skeptical?

Elegant Reasonism reconciles the unified Universe Bang to Bang and explains why supermassive black holes and the galaxies their associated stars are accelerating away from one another. Can you do that with status quo thinking? No? We didn’t think so.
Can you explain how galaxies like BX442 can be found by the HST and JWST at the developmental stage they are, how they accomplished that, and how much time there was between their formation and the Big Bang all at the same time and do so without compressing any core concepts required to accomplish your rationale? No? We didn’t think so.
Think number 1 and number two were hard? Try stepping back from Questing Unification long enough to realize that it demands credible manifestation of everything real and then look around your community at all the real things around you. Then how exactly are you going to explain those things? Can you explain Art Appreciation? Susanne K Langer did that for us through the body of her work. So much so that we would not have accomplished unification without her insights. Those insights by the way were published in her book on that very subject: art appreciation. That ought to make some folks head explode. How about Economics? Try to get a car loan from your bank and see how real you think that is. Ludwig von Mises’ body of work did that for us. He wrote a treatise on Human Action driving economics. All we had to do was credibly link action potentials within the central nervous system (CNS) back to M5 through evidence chains and that was a done deal.

We are certain that what we did will never satisfy everyone. What we did, we did for business reasons and we met our criteria for what we had to do. What we are doing now is sharing what we did with the rest of the world and for those who only want to understand you are granted a free license to do so. If you want to apply this commercially contact us on how to license your commercial endeavor or enterprise. We will work with you and get you started with as little red tape as possible.

We encourage everyone to go through our article archives and read those articles skeptically. Engage the process yourself. Go find a room with a large whiteboard or chalkboard. Create simple Translation Matrices and research your own set of POI/Ns. Look at our concept sieves and see if they can help you. Remember we are still working to integrate content on many if not most of those pages but the titles on those pages will link you directly to page in our original systems review notes on that topic. So click away and see what we found and drop it into your insights. Our experience was tacit and palpable. The term most used to describe our experience was gobsmacked.

Please don’t take our word for it. Go do this yourself. Think about it. Engage the process and framework. Don’t forget about the standards and tools available also. At the end of the day if you work enough to gain understanding your reward will be a vista from a precipice allowing you to perceive and engage the unified Universe. We think that’s worth your time and effort.

Rhetorically Who Is Wearing Gobbledygook Shoes If They Can Not Accomplish Unification?

We had to mode shift Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit and in doing so it helped to to better understand how folks approach science and other complicated subjects. But right we can tell you that some paradigms shifts are exceedingly hard to affect to any effect. You do not just walk into a room full of people of say religion A, wave a wand and declare them now of religion B. Paradigms for relationships within a persons neural network forming patterns that in some cases have lasted a lifetime. These patterns for stacks of paradigms and each layer represents neural network patterns in their physical being. Metaphorically speaking the closer to the foundation paradigm layer one gets which means it is fundamental to their entire belief system the less likely they are going to change that paradigm. Every paradigm above that one in the paradigm stack will systemically be affected. That individual must want to change all those paradigms and desire greatly to understand despite those changes. If that motivation is not there they are not going to change their paradigms. They will skew their perceptions of evidence to match their belief system. They will deny and refuse to change. Such fundamental change will alter an individual’s worldview of how reality actually works. Some are simply not ready for that and may have irreconcilable differences with you even trying. These issues are challenges that Six Sigma black belts deal with day in and day out.

Insight Justification

We are talking about epistemological justification of insights not just conversational. Epistemological justification is going to require that all parties involved are cognizant of the Elegant Reasonism utility process employing the framework it does relative to the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart and how a given team navigates that chart in order to accomplish mode shifting in order to establish and otherwise make manifest their insights. If you nakedly present the new insights without understanding these things you can probably expect to be thrown out on your ear or worse.

Elegant Reasonism is here to stay. It joins the traditional epistemologies and seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe, integrating those other epistemologies statistically weighted relative to and respective of their ability to accomplish unification of everything real using scientific methods. If there was any doubt, we are here to create history, not repeat it. What is needed now are mavericks who feel the same way about pushing the envelope with intrepidity and a sense of urgency to empower those around them. Is that you?

Fair Warning

For all the reasons cited here and elsewhere on our network presence Elegant Reasonism is a highly disruptive technology to status quo thinkers and it is not something one wants to take an apathetic attitude toward for all the reasons discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. If you sit on your laurels you may find that your competition is using Elegant Reasonism to disintermediate your IP portfolio and market capability. Learning what all this is costs nothing but your time and effort (See ERGUL). Applying it is a different matter all together and if you decide you need it then simply register on our website and then contact us and let’s get started together (See ERCUL).