Representing the unified Universe

This is Part 2 of Modeling Reality, also see Modeling Reality (Part 1).

Modeling reality is a bit like going to the eye doctor to have your vision checked. Models can be compared to the lenses in a pair of glasses. Depending on their prescription and composition will determine how and what you can or can not see. Add active instrumentality to that and you have a pair of virtual goggles through which you can engage all sorts of online games. Overlay these technologies and you have capability for “augmented reality” which allows for reality to be analyzed and presented back to the wearer in real time. Something currently being implemented in military hardware. None of this is science fiction. We describe it here to make the point that these model lenses will change your perspective on the context with which reality is perceived and engaged, analogous to how those lenses modify your vision capability.

The first thing to recognize about slavery is whether or not you are one, and if you are who or what is enslaving you. That is to say you must recognize the shackles holding or ensnaring you. The old adage that one can not move if one remains in place, but if neither can you escape then you are trapped by something. That something may be between your ears or it might be tangible. The same is true of LEEs Empiricism Trap. Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) are the kind of mistakes that happen when we mistake abstractions for actual reality and the implications flowing from or associated with the mistake. I feel obligated to mention that we did not set out to accomplish unification. We were looking for something else and stubbed our toe on it. When we did though we instantly recognized the implications and unfortunately, the associated challenges. Hardly anyone was going to be nice about any of this, for a wide array of reasons, and general denial was, and in large part, remains. Individuals highly invested in their epistemological belief systems will very likely have to transition through industry standard stages of grief dealing and coping with the associated paradigm shifts needed to gain the precipice of unification. Those stuck in those early stages may never make the trip and for that reason it is important for leadership everywhere to conduct their affairs transformationally. Reality is unified whether or not you recognize that, and it doesn’t care if you do or do not. What is, is. Part of the issue is that we humans are inside any characterization of everything real. That necessarily means that the description must ultimately include not just biology but us. To accomplish all this requires us to employ something called “a model”.  The quest for unification is over. The challenge now is knowing what to do with what we are now capable of.

Flammarion

Models are logical representations of something. Professional models (e.g. people) represent something (e.g. they are agents) to others, often clothing, automobiles, or other items for sale to the general public. The specific challenge here is recognizing that there is a problem. Once we know there is a problem, we must then characterize how that problem manifests itself. Then and only then can we begin working on illuminating the various factors to illustration so that others can understand the issues. There are all sorts of models to help with architecture, business, design, engineering, knowledge, learning, philosophy, science, and just about any other domain of discourse one might wish to name.

Simplistically unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real.

Given we are discussing everything real in the entire unified Universe there are volumes to unpack out of that sentence well beyond this meager real estate to maneuver here. This post however, has to do with the associated models attempting to enable that explanation and there is a great deal of chaos on that topic. Elegant Reasonism is specifically designed for the purpose of seeking truth as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then commission of LEEs has firmly ensnared you within LEEs Empiricism Trap. Being caught in this trap is akin to looking for a penny in the corner of a round room. You will never find it because there is no corner. If I were forced to name a single inhibitor that has precluded accomplishing unification a very long time ago it would be that we did not recognize Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) a great deal sooner than we did, and they were first described in 1948, by their namesake: Susanne K Langer. We should not beat ourselves, or any particular person from history up, because the information sciences discipline is really only now starting to get wet, perhaps ankle deep in the proverbial ocean. The professional organization for Systems Engineering, the International Council On Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was not formed until 1990.

Before we get into models, and those used herein specifically, there is an aspect, perhaps unexpected, we must discuss in order to properly position how models do what they are intended to do (and whether or not that may or may not align with our expectations of them). Systems Engineering principles teach us that models can have, probably should have both of, two views: one logical and one real. Strategically at issue here is that something can be logically correct and yet remain physically different in reality (e.g. the real view). Scientists, perhaps especially some physicists given the name assigned to their profession, believe themselves to be working directly with reality. In actuality we are all working with abstractions of reality and not reality itself, but that’s a different story. For example, look in your immediate vicinity and locate an object. Pick it up and hold it in your overturned hand. If you were to open your overturned hand, would that object fall to the Earth? Now, gently place that object back where you found it. The issue is not about checking your past experiences, it is about foreknowledge of events and proving it before you have gained any experience. That’s a tall order. What gets very difficult is when you have two competing theories about causal outcomes which both completely agree with all experiments. If you think science has that answer perhaps you should understand what Richard P Feynman had to say (in the 1950’s) about that prospect.

The Models

Today, Elegant Reasonism recognizes eight Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs):

• M0 | FAQs |: Newtonian
• M1 | FAQs |: Modern relativistic variant mass (e.g. circa 2020 the predominant status quo approach)
• M2 | FAQs |: Einstein’s relativistic invariant mass approach (understanding how we moved from M2 to M1 is a story best told by Dr. Lev B Okun, and unlocking those paths likely needs Susanne K Langer‘s insights in order to understand and articulate, at least it did for us during our original systems review).
• M3 | FAQs |: the real view expected of the first three EIMs. As it turns out, our conclusion was (rather profoundly), this EIM does not in fact exist.
• M4 | FAQs |: is M6 emulating M0, M1, M2, or M5 depending on how certain parameter values are set (useful exploring contextual dynamics).
• M5 | FAQs |: is the logical view of The Emergence Model
• M6 | FAQs |: is the real view of The Emergence Model
• M7 | FAQs |: is reserved for posterity for reasons beyond the scope here.

If you do not believe that the first three models are exclusively logical in their nature just ask yourself why investigators can move between them with great, ok relative, ease. The very hard cold answer to that is they are logical views on the underlying physical system. Their fundamental nature is logical, not physical. Remember, abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail and if you ever mistake an abstraction for actual reality then you have just committed a Langer Epistemology Error (LEE). Probably the biggest suprise that shocked us was that the evidence demanded we conclude M3 did not exist. What we found from early explorations with M4 was that M6 could emulate any of the earlier models. All we needed to do was rearrange or artificiality set values within certain parameters. Without getting into a modeling dissertation it is important to set M6 aside and  not go there for now. We know its there, it isn’t going anywhere. We also know that it must instantiate all the other logical views. Since our focus here is the unified Universe, we need to focus on the EIMs which close to unification.

Elegant Reasonism requires investigators to employ a plurality of EIMs in their work and one of them must close to unification. Today the only two EIMs which do close are M5 and M6. We just pointed out that civilization is not yet ready to engage M6 quite yet and so that leaves us working with M5 for the majority of all our work. Part of the reason for the plurality requirement is so investigators can ‘mode shift‘ between them to see how various Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) change EIM to EIM. That is to say how their underlying relationships and patterns of interaction change EIM to EIM. Remember Elegant Reasonism epistemologically seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Assumption of Nesting

While its true that if you set up some parameters in M1 you can get M0 results, but that does not mean the two EIMs are nested in any way. Essentially the same is true between M2 and M1. In fact, the same is true between M5 and the others and that’s why M4 was created (e.g. to be that playground). What it does mean is that some Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) are easily represented in both EIMs. Furthermore, and in this particular case, both of these examples require investigators to commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). There are other distinctions to be sure, least of all being ensnared within LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Discerning Reality

Out of the above list of EIMs the only real EIM is M6 and civilization has a very long way to go before we can even breathe on that model. Right now every EIM has abstractions between us and reality. We have only just now created an EIM that closes to unification and the vast majority of humanity has yet to comprehend it much less embrace it. Again, we have a long way to go if only because of issues with measurement, and signal detection.

We have used this device in other articles. Look at the glass to the right. Jot down what you see. Many, if not most, will note a glass half full and that is true. Keep looking because what is depicted there requires observation of the details and you have to know what you see when you look, and that is the core message here. LEEs Empiricism Trap is a logic trap of epic proportions.

The Realm of C’s

We call this what we do because they are a collection of words used as criteria for communication construction and the vast majority of them happen to begin with the letter ‘c’. It isn’t mystical or anything like that. In fact we stole it from the business planning community where many of the same criteria are used against business plans by their authors. We added “Closure” to that list, meaning “close to unification”, exactly because if what you are saying can not be shown to close to unification then you have a fundamental problem with that content.

Another term from that list of vital importance is “Context”. In Feynman’s lecture above he points out the difficulty in determining “what looks natural”. Elegant Reasonism always holds the actual unified Universe litmus for exactly that reason. In order to accomplish that small feat it is important to understand how our personal perspectives influence how we interpret what it is we experience and we need to do that in real time. Otherwise we may have a proverbial hog looking at a wristwatch, or perhaps a seahorse.

We mode shifted the age old Baloney Detection Kit to help folks with communications because all of this only makes it easier for those who might intentionally obfuscate the issues. Part of that is why we integrated ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards into the utility process as well as industry standard root cause analysis, Six Sigma and other types of approaches for integrity assurance measures we can all take. We must ask the right questions and we must compare those answers with the source of truth we know to be the unified Universe and that is exactly what Elegant Reasonism was designed to do.

Logical vs Real: The Ability to Close

Grounding, it is an important concept in many domains of discourse and their respective, constituent, detail sets. While in the field of electronics and electrical engineering that means an electrical ground. In the field of geometry that means having a real geometric basis point, and it is just as important there as the electrical ground is to electrical engineering. The problem is that we have, for over a century, plastered over that requirement. We rationalized it all way in the vastness of interstellar space (which those same people say was made manifest by the very thing having no basis in reeality – e.g. a real geometric basis point). OK, fine, but what are the implications of these issues. Let’s say you have a 25 page dissertation on some field of science. Under Elegant Reasonism rules the paper would have to comply with the realm of c’s, one of which is closure and that means with the unified Universe. If your paper can not accomplish that then it most likely is logical in nature regardless of the experiments you believe you’ve done. Why? Likely a review for commissions of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) was not performed.  There is something of a fine line here. Working with a logical model is not bad. In fact it is very helpful. Commission of LEEs may not be bad either, so long as you know you are committing them, have documented such, and articulate that knowledge and reasoning distinguishing both from actual reality where Elegant Reasonism holds the unified Universe litmus relative to and respective of your paper. The Elegant Reasonism analytic stack (e.g. Translation Matrices analytical layering) is no trivial matter. The rigor and discipline there are unmatched in science, for at least the reason that it requires consideration of unification issues to be philosophical predicate priorities entering science, not after you get there. The utility process of enabling that technological framework enables effective navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) as you work through development toward a final Treatise.

The Fine Line

Anyone who declares they know exactly how reality is made manifest is full of stuff cows leave around their pastures.  Elegant Reasonism seeks to reflect reality of the unified Universe. The unified Universe is the final arbiter and is always held litmus, but we never declare we know exactly what it is. We can say: ‘well if if it works this way then…’, but we can never declare “this is what it is and there is no other answer”, that latter approach is poppycock. While we recognize that there are many individuals highly invested in status quo thinking will likely say the same things about us, because they are in denial (which is fine), the one thing we know they can not do is close their thinking to unification. We did and it’s all over this website for your inspection and review. If we made a mistake somewhere, contact us and we’ll endeavor to fix it. Please know that we mode shifted The Baloney Detection Kit, and the resulting insight is a need for everyone to double check to see whose feet those baloney shoes are on. You might be surprised. Having said that, and we have said this repeatedly all over this website, that those highly invested in the old ways of thinking will very likely have to transition through industry standard stages of grief as they deal and cope with the associated paradigm shifts necessary in order to gain the precipice where they may perceive and engage the unified Universe. We can not encourage team leaders, administrators and managers to lead transformationally with great empathy and compassion. There is today, no human that has ever lived who has not, at some point during their lives, committed LEEs. So be very careful casting stones about. You may hit yourself in the foot.

Consequently there is a very fine line between characterizing (e.g. reflecting) reality, and truly understanding how reality is made manifest. We leave to philosophers that task. Another fine point is that Elegant Reasonism only requires a plurality of EIMs be employed and that at least one of those close to unification. No where do the utility process or the technological framework mandate specifically that The Emergence Model must always be used. It just so happens that particular EIM is the only one we are aware of which closes to unification, but we can not guarantee that will always be the case. If someone, at some later date, develops another EIM which also closes to unification then that eventuality only makes Elegant Reasonism more powerful than it already is. It is an eventuality we should all rejoice!  The plurality requirement will significantly aid in development of communications and insights which the Bayesian Analytics layer of Transation Matrices can capture for subsequent development of Elegant Reasonism based curricula.

Instantiation of Context

The slippery slope of LEEs Empiricism Trap begins when we erroneously believe that we are directly describing reality rather than our abstractions of it. The strategic issue is not whether or not reality instantiates our abstractions or not exactly because reality may instantiate more than a single set of abstractions. That is to say more than one logically correct Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) for the same physics (consistent with Feynman’s insight in the above video). If we respect that fine line and do not claim we are ‘declaring’ reality but rather reflecting how our abstractions characterize it, then we retain respect for abstractions and reality as distinct and separate constructs and considerations. When we employ a plurality of EIMs then we have the opportunity to investigate how reality manifests those differing contexts holistically.

Snake In The Grass

Arrogantly believing in a superior position based on past successes which not only do not close, but will never close, to unification is tantamount to a snake in the grass. Something every notable scientist in history has pointed out, but we are all human and we grow complacent in our successes. We can only encourage everyone not to become blinded by our successes. It is for that reason we mode shifted The Baloney Detection Kit. We actively encourage everyone to help as many other people to understand and then to teach others about Elegant Reasonism lest we all fall prey once again to Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and become ensnared within LEEs Empiricism Trap. On the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) left of center there is a diamond decision point we call LEEs Gate and there it asks if you are committing Langer Epistemology Errors. Recognizing commission of these darned things is just as difficult as spotting that snake in the adjacent image sometimes. It is for that reason the PDCF is recursive in nature. Just for the record we actually accomplished unification more than two years earlier than we recognized what we had done. That’s how hard some of this is to pull through the chaos and out into the light for full illumination to illustration. It’s not because the process or framework are hard, because they are not. What is difficult are all the paradigm shifts in our own heads which must shift in order to recognize how the process empowers us to enable the framework so that we can gain the precipice and articulate our investigation in fully compliant, standardized, treatise.

Oh and this is important to shareholders, investors, managers, and business leaders. If you think that the old approach of ‘wait and see’ will get you somewhere with all of this through how the market reacts to it all, you could not be more wrong. You are about to step on that snake in those leaves. Worse, you may sit on it. See our presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. If you do not heed those warnings an adversary is about to clean your proverbial clock. The only defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it more effectively than your competition. Otherwise the free market is going to get very Darwinian.

Gobsmacked!

The only word we ever found to describe the ineffable feeling generated as insight after insight rolled in during our original systems review was: gobsmacked. Sometimes we were gobsmacked so many times during a given day that we grew numb. Those experiences, for us, were tacit and palpable. When this happens to you, you are going to be excited and exhilarated, but no one else around you is going to have the slightest recognition of what you are talking about. The reason for that is that there is no common basis for communications because they are on the other side of encapsulation boundaries. Do not expect to be able to articulate your results out of context. What you must do in order to assure the integrity of communications is also to show how those insights were developed and why. That will require articulation of Elegant Reasonism, as a process, technological framework, and as an epistemology; all of which seek truth as a function of the unified Universe. See our presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 03: Communications. Once those other folks understand the process, framework and epistemology, then – and only then – will they appreciate your results, and then they too will be just as gobsmacked as the rest of us. Let the gobsmacking begin!  We look forward to your mode shifted insights!!!

__________________________________

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #SystemsEngineering #INCOSE #Logic #Logical #Reality #Model #Philosophy #Science