Crossing Real, Logical, & Imaginary for Context

We exist inside the proverbial test tube. By that I mean we are intrinsically a part of all that is, and that has ramifications. Ramifications that can not be ignored if one is to gain the precipice of unification. Alas, those are Vagaries of Context. Some want to tell you what to think, we would rather let you know that the source of truth we seek is a function of the unified Universe. We can share what we have learned during our original systems review with the hopes you gain the precipice of unification a great deal faster than it took us. Emotionally we would like to tell you that Elegant Reasonism will help you avoid the mistakes we made, but that is not how that process works. Elegant Reasonism requires a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) for any given investigation, one of which must close to unification and today only one does: The Emergence Model. So, think about that for a minute. Why would the process require employment of approaches we know can not gain the precipice of unification? The short answer to that question is that there are a great many people who do not yet realize that their approach to reality does not provide the entire picture. They only see a portion of it and they are being misled by the results they get as a result. If they get energy from some area of their experiment they can not explain it instantly becomes leakage from a parallel universe, rather than architectures of mass with different interaction characteristics due to its configuration. Because their approach is logically correct, is tested using logically correct experiments, and is immersed within a logically correct EIM, the mistake they make is believing that that they are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. In essence they do not understand the ramifications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Essentially they are taking their efforts out of context. They are oblivious to the consequences commission of that act brings.

Commission is one of the factors in the realm of the c’s.

Humanity exists inside an interpreted construct created to manifest situational clarity of the surrounding immersive environment. Knowing fantasy from reality is essential to being human, arguably that was the source of philosophical empiricism. In daily life, we ​​are constantly confronted by all kinds of facts and we use the imagination, our creative mind, to cope with them. This is a basic human trait. Reality and fantasy, fiction and non-fiction, however (one implies the other) are closely related. Our Central Nervous System (CNS) and brains instantly manifest abstractions in order that we might cope and otherwise deal with that environment and survive it. And because we do not inhabit a black and white world, we sometimes dwell in a twilight zone. We all live simultaneously within three worlds: a world outside of ourselves comprised of abstractions made manifest through our common physiology and which contains things that others can also see and hear and touch. Another is a world inside each of us consisting of our thoughts and imaginations, and which only exist in our own mind. Then there is the actual reality whose underpinning details instantiate the other two realms. Confusing these three realms constitutes something we call Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Elegant Reasonism integrates the teachings of Susanne K Langer, who in 1948, pointed out that mistaking any abstraction for actual reality is epistemologically fatal. This insight creates something of a very fine line which we must strive not to cross lest we all fall prey to what we now call such commissions: Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Usually, we effortlessly keep these worlds apart. Recent studies come to no surprise to us that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think. To perceive the outside world, our brain combines signals entering our brains through our eyes with what we expect the world to look like based on our past experiences. This means that our perception of the outside world is strongly influenced by what we believe.

There in lay a significant challenge to us all relative to accepting compelling evidence regarding the unified Universe (see Modeling Reality Part 01 and Modeling Reality Part 02). This situation potentially holds significant ramifications for justice systems worldwide as we all reconsider what constitutes not just evidence, but the constituents of peer groups validating that evidence. What constitutes an expert in unification’s wake? Our presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact briefly outlines areas business and team leaders would be wise to pay attention. One take away from that presentation is the insight that the only business defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it to greater affect and with greater effect, than your competition. Otherwise, you may as well paint a big target on yourself.

Nature of Abstractions

Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Taking into account Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) we must never cross that final, very fine line, between that last abstraction within any given Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) and actual reality. We should always leave that to the actual unified Universe to define, behave, illuminate, illustrate, and manifest into existence, lest we fall prey to LEEs. Remember, LEEs Empiricism Trap.

The Slippery Slope

Susanne K Langer said that making such mistakes was epistemologically fatal. She was correct, and the only exit from LEEs Empiricism Trap we have found is Elegant Reasonism. There is no more slippery a slope than physics. The very name of this discipline within the domain of discourse associated with science exudes dealing with the real realm of the universe; which until now has never been conceived in a unified manner. Why that situation arose in the first place could perhaps be tied directly to commission of LEEs. Being ensnared inside LEEs Empiricism Trap is akin to looking for a penny in the corner of a round room. One gets so focused on the penny the absence of any corner is never noticed. Another logical example might be the dots puzzle. Draw on any clean writing surface three equidistant rows of three dots each and then connect all nine dots with exactly four straight lines without retracing or picking up your writing instrument. Before you get too smug about already knowing the answer that solution is not the problem or point. The problem or point are the mechanisms in your brain constraining you from recognizing the solution in the first place and in context of LEEs Empiricism Trap. That’s the point.

The Fine Line

There is a very fine line between characterizing reality in order to reflect it within a given Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM), and we should never cross that line to declare that a given perspective ‘is’ reality, lest we fall prey to LEEs becoming mired within logic traps we may not be smart enough to get out of. We need only point out the last hundred or so years to make those vagaries clear. The close we get to core constructs of any given EIM the more careful we must be. Rigor must be high enough to assure investigative integrity. It is for these and other reasons that formal treatment of Elegant Reasonism must integrate ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards, Six Sigma, Root Cause Analysis in a fully compliant but mode shifted manner in order that metrics affect to great effect. Mathematics must be employed in a critical situationally aware approach. Fully compliant in this context means all “realm of c’s” criteria associated with a given treatise delivers truth as a function of the unified Universe and does so in a manner that illuminates appropriate factors and insights to full illustration. Investigators are warned and cautioned that such a treatise must accompany comprehensive description of how Elegant Reasonism was employed to derive those results. You must be prepared to explain how investigative integrity was assured consistent with National Performance Excellence Program (NPEP) standards. If you can accomplish these tasks you are much more likely to develop a compelling Treatise which delivers truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Misunderstanding Results

Commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) brings with it an increased likelihood of crossing over to the baloney side. A number of years ago an attempt was made to quickly determine whether or not what you were experiencing ‘accurate scientific information’ resulted in what was then called a ‘baloney detection kit’. At the time it seemed appropriate. So much so that we mode shifted it; where it joined the introduction presentation set as: Elegant Reasonism Introduction & Overview, Part 03: Mode Shifting the Baloney Detection Kit. LEEs were the last thing anyone ever expected, and evidently everyone on Earth was rampantly committing them. Most still are. That, is the insidious nature of LEEs Empricism Trap. I often catch myself committing them to this day. It is a hard habit to break. We are all human and have our foibles. This is just another one to put in the New Year’s resolution quiver. This is important here to the extent that we can look at some material and recognize off ramps to enter the Elegant Reasonism process and framework in order to support the epistemology where we would presumably seek truth as a function of the unified Universe.

The multiverse (which is a dead concept by the way) is an example of not understanding the implications of how LEEs misdirect and otherwise obfuscate experimental results. When one rationalizes away the requirement of a common real geometric basis point, geometry essentially runs amuck. Part of the problem is what we call the encapsulation boundary. It is akin to being in a parallel universe, but that might arguably be the wrong metaphor to apply here given we dismantled and killed that concept. Elegant Reasonism essentially constrains those boundaries to the 2D Articulation Layer within Translation Matrices and then dedicates subsequent layering to analytics defined by that particular layer for specific purposes. Some of those layers have columnar focus, others horizontal, and others hybrid focus. How each is set up is specific to a given investigation. Taxonomically herein absolutely everything is mode shifted. Just to be clear, and for the record, that is a requirement handed us by the unified Universe, not our little company. Elegant Reasonism simply abides by the requirement and takes especial note of it. I want to make this point without eviscerating any particular individual or group, because in the end, all of us are guilty of committing LEEs at some point. Some just more egregiously than others. Again, taxonomically below we have a hierarchy of detail sets within the domain of discourse we call philosophy. Each detail set listed below is too a domain of discourse in its own right with with constituent detail sets. We take you through this because these relationship matter a great deal when we start mode shifting it all and remember – every last facet must be mode shifted and not tweaked. Also, this list is not all inclusive, but exemplary in nature:

• Philosophy (the study of everything)
  • Axiology – philosophy of value derivation
  • Epistemology – philosophy of knowledge
  • Ontology – philosophy of being
  • Science – philosophy of nature
  • Supervenience – philosophy of order and prioritization

Part of the reason all the existing scientists missed requirements of unification to date is directly due to Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) but also because epistemologically this taxonomy was not recognized because of committing those errors. The point is that if you are oblivious to LEEs, you are just as oblivious to these issues. Because of that obfuscation the correct questions are never asked because no one is looking for those answers, because the questions never got asked. Not until you realize these issues will you recognize the reasons why unification is a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there, because by then you are looking at the proverbial bark on the trees and not the proverbial forest.

Rationalizing Away Issues

Rationalizing away issues is prohibited. A given phenomena may not exist in one EIM or another for documented reasons, but we can not just declare it not relevant. The requirement for a common real geometric basis point comes to mind. Reconciling concepts like infinite compression (the corollary to rapid expansion which is needed for the inflationary theory) in context of black hole growth is yet another example from the realm of theoretical astrophysics. Concepts like the multiverse (which is a dead concept here) without ever employing a common real geometric basis point is yet another. Finding elements like gold intermixed in quartz matrices in geology without ever asking how that material came to be at the source is yet another. Staring at objects like GLASS-z12 and BX442 are still other examples. Attempting to constrain the entire conversation to complex realms of theoretical astrophysics without ever broaching the concept of biology or subjects like economics or art appreciation remain furhter examples. The list goes on likely to every corner of philosophy. Every test we put to it only made the process stronger. We have never been able to invalidate any of it.

The Last Increment

Taking the insight that all valid geometries require a common real geometric basis point from which to begin or reference the rest of any geometric map as an example; we must recognize that stopping short of being unable to employ such a construct should have sent up red flags. Indeed it did send up flags for countless many, but in every case and instance those conscientious objectors were shut down by bastions of institutionalized thinking.

Rigor

We must summon our entrepreneurial spirit and reinvigorate our vision to see solutions where none existed before. Demand integrity and do not allow others to shut down conversation and debate.

Brodening Focus & Increasing Resolution

No one sits down to accomplish unification. Not even our little endeavor. We were working on something else and stubbed our toe on this. We never set out with this (unification) as an objective. Turning back the clock to a point before Einstein published his paper in 1905 the talk of the then community had been concerned about the medium of interstellar space. It was presumed then that medium was something called the luminiferous aether. The Michelson–Morley interferometer experiment was created in order to use the speed of light in order to detect the luminiferous aether. The experiment failed to detect the luminiferous aether and instead shocked everyone by reporting a constant velocity for the speed of light under every concievable variation test they could throw at it. Rationalizing that situation is what Einstein was thinking about. Einstein was not out to accomplish unification. Dr. Lev Okun takes us on a journey through history to understand the concept of mass from Einstein to the present day. The result of that work segregated M1 and M2 along the lines of whether or not you consider mass variant or not. Einstein did not believe mass was variant, contrary to many modern scientists stating otherwise. Fast forward to what McGowen was working on and the situation changes completely. McGowen was working on a project involving impact dynamics across the solar system and was noodling on the Aitken Basin Event at Earth’s Moon’s Southern polar region.

The South Pole–Aitken basin (SPA Basin, /ˈeɪtkɪn/) is an immense impact crater on the far side of the Moon. At roughly 2,500 km (1,600 mi) in diameter and between 6.2 and 8.2 km (3.9–5.1 mi) deep, it is one of the largest known impact craters in the Solar System. It is the largest, oldest, and deepest basin recognized on the Moon. The diameter of the moon is roughly 3476 km making this impact some 72% of that diameter. The question then became: “how did the moom stay in one piece?”. That story is part of the original systems review notes. Part of the challenge in reconciling the Aitken event required scale coupling and linking Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics is not something status quo does well, especially in context of impact dynamics. In any event, McGowen had all sorts of historical researcher’s papers all over his desk at the time, but happened to be holding one of Einstein’s papers as he stood from his chair muttering “well that makes sense” and in that instant, froze. He looped that phrase out loud continuously until it became “well that makes logical sense”. He immediately sat back down and built a 2D table (now called the 2D Articulation Layer within Translation Matrices). The left column had factors from the problem in a list. One column to the right was Newton’s manifestation answers, and the next column over became modern status quo manifestation of the same problem factors. Once that was done, the question was coming up with a net new column that would satisfy all the same problem factors and be better than either of the 2nd or 3rd columns. What would that model look like. Ultimately that early exercise resulted in the development of what we now call Translation Matrices. What came out of that exercise was The Emergence Model.

The cogent description of The Emergence Model’s M5 yields an insight about architectural mass that is unavailable in any other EIM and it is the frangibility of architectural mass under the correct conditions within a given Event Frame. We must too remember that Gravitons are low ordered constructs. It is primarily for these reasons that impact craters are wider than they are deep. Also associated with all such events is a relative energy signature. These issues all conspired during the Aitken Basin Event to distribute momentum and inertia across that set of dynamics resulting in our Moon staying in one piece.

Right about here is where cognitive neuroscientists might have an interesting time. We went on with our research for nearly 36 months working on various aspects of Aitken impact dynamics. McGowen chanced to flip back to equation 135 in what are now the original system review notes and realized that the mode shifted point of view unified physics. There are several points here and the story is actually much larger than this but succinctly this benchmark is where a number of issues were realized. Written here from the point of view of hindsight, the cogent description of The Emergence Model’s M5 describes the relationship between core constituents and forces that result. One is that the tapestry of unification is a great deal larger than just physics and includes everything real. Unification necessarily integrates not just real objects but philosophy and all its various disciplines as well, including science. Interaction and an array of phenomena are functions of configurations manifesting relative and relational complex composite architectures of mass. Consequently the 800 lb gorilla in this particular room, quite rhetorically, is what those various configurations actually look like and how is it they manifest what they do.

Susanne K Langer’s Insights

Do not think for an instant that just because unification has been accomplished that needed work is in any way complete. Indeed exactly the opposite is true. The work remains in front of us all. All of this might sound very confusing to the uninitiated, perhaps more so to folks not familiar with information sciences and the industries they support. Know that reality instantiates all logical views of it. All animals which have a central nervous system (CNS) and a brain connect physiological sensors to that brain and together produce abstractions which allow the animal to perceive and engage the environment in which it exists. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details. The Emergence Model enables the division between inorganic and organic because the intrinsic nature of its core constituents naturally follow discontinuous geometric maps. That is to say they are consistent with the detail sets within the science of Geometry. The essential point is that the intrinsic nature of those core constructs enable manifestion of everything real across the entire entanglement gradient from the smallest conceivable object, something that EIM calls a Most Basic Particle (MBP), the largest most supermassive black hole and everything in between. The net result of all this is the ability to characterize the entire unified Universe Bang to Bang.

Mode Shifting Concepts Is A Must – Then Ask More Questions

Under The Emergence Model EIMs we can characterize what banged, why it banged, pretty much where it banged, we will be able to also discern when it banged once we normalize all the z-factor data, and how it banged. We can characterize what existed in this vicinity prior to the bang, and we can describe what is going on now. Right now astronomical sciences report galaxies accelerating away from one another. The Bang to Bang insights fully expect this to happen and explains why it is happening, but the implication is that this sets the stage for the entire process to happen all over again in trillions of other locations far beyond our particle horizon. The Emergence Model holds that the constancy associated with the various interferometer experiments as a function of the local systems emitting the light. That the red and blue shifts noted in astronomical spectroscopy originally discovered by Edwin P Hubble do represent cosmological rapidities. Interestingly in all  of this is that the term ‘c’ historically assigned to the speed of light mode shifts to a new term representative of the cascade resulting in its emission called Severance. Rapidity is loosely defined as velocity over ‘c’. Consequently its definition means one thing under the EIMs M1 & M2 and something completely different under the EIM M5 & M6. Said another way is that the speed of light remains the same but why its true is different. Cosmologically Hubble is vindicated by Elegant Reasonism and The Emergence Model relative to the unified Universe. Does that necessarily mean Einstein was wrong? Absolutely not!! It does mean Einstien was only logically correct though and in that regard is no different than any other human that has ever lived. Today every human that has ever lived has committed Langer Epistemology Errors, and without exception, including McGowen (me).

Misleading Slippery Slope

LEEs Empiricism Trap is insidious. It is insidious in the sense that logically correct EIMs will present you with congruence, but that congruence is of the logical correctness and not the whole of reality. I probably need to unpack that sentence. Reality instantiates logical views of it. M1, M2, M4, and M5 are all logical views, but only M5 in that list closes to unification. When we fail to comprehend the implications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors more that several phenomena occurs to and inside us. One is that a belief that we are working directly with nature gets established rather than the actual scenario that we are working with abstractions of it. That misalignment results in the wrong questions being asked and answered. It also results in misinterpretation of the results we get back from our experiments. Interferometer experimental results are a great example. Because more than several EIMs do not close to unification means that they leave factors on the table not explained relative to the unified Universe. Those factors represent logic artifacts directly resulting from the inability to close to unification. The concept of the multiverse is a great example of that because under M5, it is eviscerated outright due to the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point. If we do not comprehend that the comprehensive system within the Event Frame Phase Step 1 (EFPS1) where photons are emitted from electrons due to centripetal force and all the various forces acting upon that system then situation results in likely more than several explanations for exactly the same results occur. That’s how we wound up with the various models we did and the explanations for them. The point here though is that only M5 closes to unification. We are not that interested in the others, except to better understand how to help others gain the precipice enabling them to perceive and engage the unified Universe.

Looking for unification under M1 or M2 has been characterized as looking for a penny in the corner of a round room. You will never find it, because there is no corner, not because the penny does not exist. The exit from that particular Mobius loop is to objectify the entire quest and back up from it. The same might be said for solving the puzzle problem asking you to connect three equidistant rows of three equidistant dots each with exactly four perfectly straight lines without ever retracing any particular line and without picking your writing instrument up. The point is not whether or not you know the solution to the puzzle, rather it is which paradigms you had to change in your own perceptions in order to comprehend the solution. That, is the point.

Mode Shifting POI/Ns EIM to EIM and Back Again

Without digging into enabling details here the process of changing foundational interpretative context is a process within Elegant Reasonism called “mode shifting“. What readers need to know right now is that the process and framework holistically take into account the intrinsic nature of each EIM as well as the systemic relationships and patterns each makes manifest and it respects encapsulation boundaries. Subsequent analytics are relegated to other analytical layers within Translation Matrices where EIM to EIM analytics are not bothered by encapsulation boundaries and objective logic can safely be applied.

Compelling Nature

What is compelling about Elegant Reasonism is the ability to take what it is we think we know and mode shift it into alignment relative to the unified Universe. Does that mean what we think we know is correct or not correct? Perhaps, but not really. What is returned is more likely a probability of truth relative to the unified Universe along with additional criteria. For example, if you asked about time travel, that would likely get eviscerated quickly because the definitions of what you are asking get mode shifted and the answer means something different depending on the EIM. What also happens is that the logical nature of many concepts becomes illuminated to illustration, and again the example of time travel results in our ability to illustrate why under The Emergence Model the arrow of time is always positive.

Time’s Arrow

Reality is that everyday experience shows us, despite theoretical views, that all action is in a single direction and that direction is forward. There have been dozens, if not orders of magnitude more than that, of papers, TV shows, and literature devoted to time travel and paradoxes of all sorts. They are entertaining, to a point. Reality is however somewhat different. The challenge we had during our original systems review was to also explain why what has become known as time’s arrow is always positive. the cogent description of The Emergence Model’s M5 intrinsically delivers the answer to that question. Therein time is defined as an action displacement index and it is not a dimensional component of space, in fact space doesn’t have the same definition there either. Concepts like time travel simply do not exist under that EIM, much to the disappointment of all science fiction authors. Science Fiction In Unification’s Wake will take on a completely different tone and manner.

Here again, the rigor of mode shifting illuminates to illustration. Very likely one area that is going to significantly aid treatise and insight development in all of this is Artificial Intelligence (AI) and companies that would like to train their AI systems are cautioned to first make sure they have secured a commercial license from SOLREI INC before they begin that effort.

Where Does This Leave Us?

The current situation across civilization epistemologically is that different demographics align themselves with different epistemologies, which is fine if that’s what they want to do. Each epistemology sources truth in a different fashion. The new epistemology on the proverbial block is Elegant Reasonism and it sources truth as a function of the unified Universe and statistically weights all the other epistemologies relative to their ability to accomplish that objective. Systems Engineering, a detail set discipline within information sciences, governs logical views of real systems and notes that there may be more than one logically correct view of the same real system. Humanity has learned over the last several decades to employ exactly these scenarios vis-a-vie online games where whole realms of fictional worlds are made manifest through software manipulation. What no one, anywhere, ever expected was that the abstractions we created within our sciences to very subtly create the same insulation between us and reality and trick us into thinking we were working directly with reality. In essence that’s what Susanne K Langer‘s body of work details out for us. Consequently concepts like, for example, the multiverse are more akin to games like the World of Warcraft than actual reality.

Taking all of this into holistic account then leaves us understanding that we have logically correct EIMs each of which has distinct points of view and they are M1, M2, M4, and M5; of which only M5 closes to unification. We have a net new utility process and technological framework which support an epistemology which together (e.g. Elegant Reasonism) seek truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) to close to unification: The Emergence Model.

What Elegant Reasonism represents is an ability to mode shift what it is we think we know into fully compliant alignment with the unified Universe and that’s pretty powerful.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights!

Sic’em!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification