Confidence + Info Yields ConfidenceConfidence + Info Yields Confidence

Nature Of Confidence

Why is Elegant Reasonism so compelling? Part of understanding confidence levels in having accomplished unification includes the realization of human physiology within that insight. Unification is a completely different kind of topic because it demands a credible manner in which to manifest everything real. Turning that around means that everything real has some connection to its beginnings, and that’s something we need to understand. How did it come to be? Did we test everything real? Of course not, but everything we did test, mode shifted with relative ease. So much so, that we stopped trying to do that. It seemed pointless to us, and in the end we did not set out to accomplish unification in the first place, so it isn’t really our priority. Unification is just something we stubbed our toe on during our journey, and it is time to get on with the real journey. So, part of our mission here, is not about what we can do with all this, it is rather what we can empower you to do with it. In fact, mode shifting as much as we did, also gives us perspective to understand all those who want to live in denial. We don’t care. If you want to stay in that hole, that’s entirely your choice. What we will tell you is perhaps you should not destroy the ladder to get out while you’re in there. The exit out onto the precipice enabling perception and engagement of the unified Universe is this way. We will try and leave markers on the trail so you can find the path.

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

Mode Shifting The Term Compelling

Traditionally the term compelling was used relative to mathematical congruence with an argument. If the math all worked and the results confirmed the assertion then we would refer to that general flow of ideas as hypothetically congruent If those same ideas then agreed with experiment we would say it was empirically congruent. The experimental consequences were consistent with empirical result. That is to say the idea agreed with experiment. Strategically then, the question becomes does all that effort also close to unification? That is to say is it congruent with the unified Universe as well? A real system can instantiate more than one logical view of the same system. It is akin to changing perspectives perhaps.

Logically correct views of a given system are precisely defined, with inputs, and outputs along with expected results. Real systems are less precise because there is almost always more than one real way to accomplish the same result. For example 1 + 2 = 3 is logically the same as (1 + 2)  + (17 * 0) = 3.  In that second case the (17 * 0) collapses to zero and is never seen on the three side of the equation. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, just that you never saw it. The semantics here are important relative to the details under discussion. We are dealing with mother nature here and she does not always show her hand.

Part of developing a compelling case here means full inventory and articulation of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) relative to and respective of a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM), one of which is required to close to unification. The result is a number of different ways to instantiate the same POI/N. In the process of enabling that perspective investigators have the opportunity to illuminate, EIM by EIM, the same POI/N and then take that composite set in juxtaposition relative to the real unified Universe for comparison (and presumably experiment).

Another aspect here is full comprehension of how relationships and patterns differ EIM to EIM and relative to and respective of associated mathematics. Here again we have the opportunity to expand, illuminate and illustrate any distinctions that might arise. Also articulating the process, technological framework, used to develop those insights justify the actions taken by the investigative team. There are more than several points to be made here. One is that mathematics must be mode shifted. While the mechanics of mathematics might be the same, the elements they deal with may be defined differently and must be explained. The point here is that if the relationships and patterns are different results of equations may differ. If the insights are not expanded upon in fully compliant context of the manner in which they were developed they will make sense to no one. Compelling treatise then, must articulate the means by which the insight was developed in addition to the result or the basis of communications will fail.

You Can Not Fix It If You Don’t Realize It’s Broken

Current predominant thinking (e.g. status quo) can not close to unification. That is a hard cold fact. The question is: why not? Many, who presumibly are Blinded By Past Successes, rampantly commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) oblivious to LEEs Empiricism Trap. Those highly invested individuals, having committed LEEs but also can not close their thinking to unification, can also not let go of their belief system exactly because they have been blinded by past successes and they can not fathom that there are other ways to explain the same circumstances and conclusions in a manner which does close to unification (e.g. simultaneous truths).

What Status Quo Will Never Accomplish

Those who persist in the old ways will never:

  • Employ a common, real, geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. They can’t because all real objects transitioning the spacetime-mass interface convert to energy as governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. This is the singular reason all efforts to understand quantum gravity have failed. It is also why all efforts to drive quantum computing have also failed.
  • Fully couple all real objects in all frames of reference to all real forces having any influence over them. They can not accomplish this fundamentally due to all the reasons they can not accomplish the first point.
  • Discern distinctions between logical and real views of the same system in fully compliant context of Langer Epistemology Errors and information sciences discipline of Systems Engineering. The core issues behind this point are why we focus on M5 rather than M6.
  • Realize/Recognize how logic artifacts resulting from the inability to close to unification manifest resulting incongruity and they will therefore often refer to such as ‘mysterious phenomena’. They are not mysterious if they understood how to wield Elegant Reasonism and mode shift the situation.

Encapsulation

Model tweakers be warned, the essential context must change before you will comprehend changes and dynamics associated with the standard root cause analysis questions and their answers. Conversational Elegant Reasonism are not that difficult, (it does however require exceptional rigor), but dealing and coping with the preexisting paradigms between your own ears represents something that only you can change. We didn’t live your life. Consequently we can’t begin to guess any characterization about how that got linked up. Clinical psychologists are going to have a field day with all this. What we can report is that fundamental context is encapsulated such that it is a function of the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) making it manifest. The strategic question which must be asked is whether or not that EIM even has the capability of closing to unification. M1 and M2 are both logic traps, and we know that because both are replete with logic artifacts. It isn’t that they don’t close, and neither does. The more important point is that they philosophically never will, and it does not matter how much time, energy, money, human capital, or resources into that quest. Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that hard cold fact precludes ever accomplishing unification within the constraints of either of those EIMs.

This is not an idle insight. It can be a vital discourse highly relevant to interpersonal relationships and interactions between colleagues. What we can report is that attempting to communicate mode shifted insights consistent with the unified Universe absent positive confirmation of cognizance relative to how those insights were developed is a fools errand. All parties engaged must be fully aware of the process, its technological framework and how it supports the epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority entering science as well as why that is all true. If you don’t do that then you are potentially wasting your time. At least that has been our experience. People have to want to understand how this all works, and if they are firmly ensnared and otherwise mired within LEEs Empiricism Trap then you have your work cut out for you. Highly vested individuals are very likely going to transition through industry standard stages of grief dealing and coping with the paradigm shifts necessary to gain the precipice of unification. That insight is as important introspectively as it is in our dealings with others.

Because of encapsulation it is not possible to perceive context of another EIM from within the constrained compartment of another, and for all the reasons that neither M1 nor M2 (and more) will never close to unification. Simply put the mechanisms to accomplish that communication, enablement of perception, etc is a capability that did not exist prior to Elegant Reasonism. LEEs Empiricism Trap essentially describes the bottle within which humanity finds itself circa 2022.

Encapsulation Boundaries

Because EIMs establish fundamental context, relationships and patterns change EIM to EIM and while that might sound simple in practical reality it is a significant challenge because it means that numbers and values mathematically derived in one EIM are not applicable in another due to the fact that the underlying abstraction details are different EIM to EIM. The 800 lb gorilla in the room of M5 is our lack of knowledge about the configuration details associated with architectures of mass manifesting everything real. To that specific end we made a simple pass at whether or not Summit could be used for that purpose. Our conclusion was that it could not and for more than several reasons. The needed system is several orders of magnitude more powerful and it needs to be designed from the ground up to be consistent with Elegant Reasonism. There is a strategic and highly complex point having to do with LEEs Empiricism Trap and how that relates to Summit’s original design. In the end it is simpler to craft a net new platform than rebuild and reconfigure Summit. Consequently we asked the National Science Foundation for assistance building an R&D platform suitable for this purpose. The resulting insights could be provided across the economy and enterprise.

Mathematics

Mathematics and assosiated proofs tie out to the context made manifest by a given Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM)‘s context created in that particular instance or view. Elegant Reasonism‘s utility process and technological framework are specifically designed to enable mode shifting Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) EIM to EIM and then to rigorously subject those associations and patterns, (and their relative changes EIM to EIM), to analysis down through analytical layers that specifically focus on different aspects of a given investigation.

Mathematical congruence is a function of context established by a given EIM. Something can be logically correct yet remain different in reality. For example, The Emergence Model has two views one logical (e.g. M5) and one real (e.g. M6). The real view instantiates the logical view. For reasons beyond the scope of this article humanity is not ready to work with M6 in any significant way. Simplistically we lack the tools and developement to do so effectively. There is much work needed in that area. Encapsulation boundaries prevent application of precepts of one EIM being applied to another. Consequently the expectation that what works in one EIM will automatically work in another are not guaranteed and must be mode shifted.

Current, Predominant, Thinking

Strategically the issue is not really about the models, necessarily, but in how we think we constitute all the criteria concerning how we characterize what reality actually is. Two recent articles might be entitled Modeling Reality Part 01, and Part 02, though they have different names. The problem is more severe when we realize how these various issues mislead civilization and waste vital resources, not to mention the costs us all time and delay properly implemented solutions. The implications to the global economy and effective implementation of strategic sustainability could be devastating to long term survival of the biosphere of Earth.

Employ A Common Real Geometric Basis Point

Can you do that, yes or no? If you can not employ a common real geometric basis for all real objects in all reference frames then you have a conundrum exactly because valid geometry requires one. If you can not employ one then the geometry you promulgate is exclusively logical in nature and does not represent reality. Reality might instantiate it, but your logical view is not actual reality. Something can be logically correct yet remain different in reality because reality instantiates the logical view you have of it. It does not mean that because you have logical congruence that reality necessarily is holistically represented by that logical view, no matter how congruent it is. If it does not close to unification (e.g. is fully complilant with the realm of c’s) then you have a problem.

Necessary But Insufficient

There are a number of areas under Elegant Reasonism where traditional approaches are necessary but insufficient to gain the precipice of unification. Empiricism is one example. Just because you can experience something, duplicate it and others can repeat what you did, get the same results you did, etc. does not necessarily mean that all of that represents reality. What it means is that what all of you did is instantiated by reality in the same way. That is to say what you did was logically correct in the fully compiant context of the EIM manifesting the context in which those acts were performed. What it does not say is whether or not there is an incremental (e.g. different EIM) that is also simultaneously congruent. Watching Richard Feynman’s video below his example of theory a and theory b, are an example. What we are looking for is a manner to explicitly test affinity relative to and respective of the unified Universe, not empiricism. Empirical results are necessary but must be statistically weighted relative to and respective of the unified Universe. The unified Universe is where we must seek truth.

Implications in Hindsight

Many of these issues are discussed in our presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions.

  • Concepts like the multiverse result from M1 or M2 logic artifacts and are therefore virtual issues and constructs. This concept is DOA and does not mode shift. That is to say mode shifting the construct completely dismantles and otherwise disintermediates any associated validity. See elimination of red herrings.
  • Setting misleading red herrings aside also illuminates the fact that status quo thinking simply can not connect to concepts and constructs manifesting the unified Universe. It can not exactly because its fundamental philosophical underpinnings preclude manifestation of those relationships. While the point is made by Richard P Feynman in the video below, that is not the point here. The point here is quantifying to Quality Management Systems standards and modern information sciences standards why these issues are true in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism.

 

 

These issues are not just academic. To say that they significantly impact global enterprise and the economic niches they inhabit does not convey larger implications to civilization. We need to embrace Elegant Reasonism as fast as humanly possible across all sectors of society. However, that is an unrealistic expectation. It may take centuries for Elegant Reasonism to propagate to that extent, if ever. It is anything but certain if humanity is ready to seek truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs)

PDCF Mug
Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart Mug

It is simple to say and very difficult to integrate into our thinking. LEEs occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality.

Systems Engineering (SE)

SE principles, processes, practices, and indeed the profession present us with the insights around frameworks dealing with logical views of real systems and the implications of all of those vantage points.

Requirements Handed Down

The unified Universe is its own litmus and we hold it self-evident that it is in fact unified. Requirements are given us, not created by us. These are not issues which we can arbitrarily chose to ignore at a whim. Rationalizing away requirements because of logical congruence should send up red flags forcing us to validate reality, not motivate emotional glee. If your investigation does not close to unification then that’s a huge problem and it must be reconciled.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills. This effect is often cited by the credentialed on those not so encumbered. The implication is that those not so schooled don’t know what they are talking about. There are many examples in history here where those who might wield this as a club should exercise some restraint. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oliver Heaviside, Elon Musk and almost all of US Navy SEALs we’ve met, all come immediately to mind. These folks all have one thing in common – they do what it takes to learn what they need to know in order to get the job done. They think independently and they do not need you to tell them how to think.

OK, that’s what this effect is, but the question then becomes understanding to whom this effect applies. Is it more applicable to the credentialed individual ardently defending status quo bastions of institutional knowledge that is logically correct, yet can not close to unification, or does it apply to Feynman’s Mayan Astronomer or his student in the example he uses in the above video. If we could go back to a time when everyone believed the Earth was flat and asked questions about its nature to whom would this effect apply? One would think such issues would not occur in modern society but that assumption is false. On Feb 22, 2020 Mike Hughes was killed in a rocket he built trying to prove that the Earth was flat. The point we are making here is not that Mike obviously ignored science fact, because he had to have had a reasonable degree of knowledge to build the rocket that ultimately killed him. We might say the same thing about early sailors who sailed beyond the horizon and returned safely (e.g. they did not fall off the edge of the Earth). The point here is about denial. It is for that reason that we mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit. Rhetorically we ask who wound up holding the baloney, the Mayan Astronomer or his student? Just as rhetorically we ask who is more correct, highly successful status quo defenders incapable of articulating with clarity the unified Universe or Elegant Reasonism where the cogent description of M5 accomplishes exactly that. One is cautioned about an age old tale about casting stones, but we’ll leave that there. The point is that we should not be blinded by past successes regarding the path to what is required of us to move forward.

Systems Engineering Principles

The International Council On Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was not formed until 1990 and, relatively speaking, it is the new kid on the block and it is part of the Information Sciences domain of discourse with a variety of constituent detail set areas of specialization. Traditionally the profession focuses on anthropogenic systems, and not all systems. Other types of systems being those of nature. That does not mean that the same principles don’t apply, just that the profession focuses on anthropogenic systems, because that’s what pays the bills. Trees, rocks, and frogs don’t pay for systems engineering services, but they are all systems within the Earth‘s biosphere none the less and it too is a system of systems. What The Emergence Model has taught us is that everything real is a system or system of systems and the principles, processes, practices, and indeed the profession of systems engineering helped us to sort all that out.

Strategically relevant here are principles associated with logical views of real systems in context of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and being able to distinguish which is which and why. Heretofore (e.g. prior to Elegant Reasonism) we could argue all day long about Feynman’s example of theory A and B about which ‘looked more natural’. Now we have a litmus test; which has greater affinity with the unified Universe. Empiricism is necessary but insufficient to discern these details and we need only point out the vagaries of LEEs Empiricism Trap and the slippery slope it represents. At the end of the day, humans have the physiology we do which nature so kindly provided. Our challenge is to deal and cope with what we have been provided as best we can. Consequently we make special note that M1, M2, and M5 are all logically correct models and, as Feynman points out they all have consequences the same and agree with experiment. We must then back up and look at how we establish value one EIM from any other. We may now ask which solution best matches all the criteria rigorously required by the realm of the c’s (one ‘c’ of which is closure to unification). That’s where we must make note that M5 is the only EIM in that list currently capable of closing to unification. Holistically any investigation taking into account fully compliant mode shifting these environments will conclude that Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N), including 100% of all concept sieves (i.e. EMCS01, EMCS02, and EMCS03) close to unification under M5 consistent with all established standards.

Taking all of this into simultaneous conclusion and treatise we are confronted with the simple fact that Elegant Reasonism is compelling beyond any measure or traditional standard.

A Few Insights From The Emergence Model’s M5

So what major issues from across science are more easily explained by M5 than the status quo is capable of delivering?

Early Adopters Please Lead Transformationally

Not everyone around the world is epistemologically ready to seek truth as a function of the unified Universe. To that end, goal, and objective it is incumbent on change agents, team leaders, managers, and executives to manage expectations and results transformationally and with great empathy and compassion. Heel draggers and others who ardently want to stay in status quo positions should be aware that this train has left the station. Your job now is to catch up and your competition is going to determine your fate, not us. The only defense we know of against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it to greater affect and effect than your competition. SOLREI INC is done shooting up flares and trying to warn everyone. Free markets will determine the fate of the apathetic. Delay at the risk of shareholder value, and competitive business risk. Don’t say we didn’t try to warn you. We have engaged all appropriate agencies and institutions. They’re reaction is their own business.

Seahorse Looking at Wristwatch
Seahorse Situational Awareness

What we can report as of this post is that people from all over the planet, in just about every niche, are engaging our materials to understand how they relate to them and whatever they are working on. We draw especial attention to the presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. SOLREI INC is not going to pick winners and losers in free markets, and we have promised that to the SEC. To all those Emanuel Ninger types out there, unless you change the paradigm stack between your own ears you may find yourself peering into something you do not understand nor care to pursue. We all have more than enough opportunity resulting from all of this. Civilization needs all the help it can get if we are to attain strategic sustainability. Let’s all get to solving real problems, not petty pursuits.

SOLREI INC is allowing free access to Elegant Reasonism. We only ask for licensing in revenue generating activities through our commercial license of Elegant Reasonism. This is all new to everyone, including our company. If we can help please contact us and let’s explore how to solve your problem together. If the solution you seek is mutually advantageous and helps everyone then we are likely to do what we can within our ability to do so.

It has been said that if you want something you have never had, you must do something you have never done. Albert Einstein once said: “We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them”. Another apropos statement is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The way in which we have been going about the quest for unification has not worked. Unification has now been accomplished and while that quest might be over, the work it brings as a result lay before us. There is no greater challenge representing such opportunity as what we now lay before you.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights.

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Philosophy #Science

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