The Point of Elegance

Our original system review notes were compiled under the title: Elegance of Reason: Discerning Patterns of Earth’s Emergence (now obsolete), ultimately that reared up and drove development of what has become Elegant Reasonism. Unification is the epitome of the notion ‘simple to the point of elegance’. During that initial systems review we lost count of the number of times we required concepts to distinguish one another in the same sentence. That act requires a great deal of effort. Marketing Management (discipline within the marketing profession) professionals appreciate the point regarding core messaging holds.

The Realm of C’s

There is in marketing and business planning the notion of five c’s. As you look at them you will understand they represent aspects of planning and execution that you must know in order to conduct your business affairs. They are:

Company – who are you
Customers – who do you serve
Competitors – who else does what you do
Collaborators – who helps you
Climate – what is the marketplace landscape

This is not an academic exercise. What we call the realm of c’s is a derivative of the above list and for the same reasons. We refer to it as a realm because there are considerably more than five c’s involved in our list, with perhaps the most important being “close” (e.g. to unification). As investigators execute the utility process and enable mode shifting through the technological framework they will have to consider each aspect of their investigation against that criteria. The good news is that our original systems review notes are availble online through our network presence. The realm of c’s is integral to business integrity.

While many might automatically drop the subject of unification into the realm of theoretical astrophysics, we must all remember that unification demands the credible path to reintegration of everything real, and without exception. Theoretical astrophysics is a part but it is not the whole. Unification must, by definition, deal with the whole, and do so in the most simple manner possible because every foundational aspect is highly systemic across the entire entanglement gradient in both the emergent and convergent vectors.

Integrity

There are several dimensions of application of the realm of the c’s each within which they apply, but discretely in that context. One must study and fully understand the analytical intent of each specific area of Translation Matrices to understand what we mean by that. For example, at the 2D Articulation Layer these various criteria apply within the constrained boundaries of each employed Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM). That perspective tends to be columnar with the perspective of the discrete EIM‘s manifestation of the various Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N). From the perspective of the POI/N that vantage point is horizontal; where the means by which each EIM manifests the various aspects of the POI/N. Any specific declarations necessary relative to that specific POI/N are made by each EIM in succession. In some cases an EIM may declare that POI/N does not exist, but it must explain the reasons for that declaration. These basic efforts fundamentally enable basic mode shifting necessary in order to navigate the Process and the associated Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) to great affect and effect. Here it is necessary to point out to investigators that they may wind up mode shifting the very metrics with which they measure success. Remember, everything will likely need to be mode shifting. Take nothing for granted and assume nothing. Each one of these steps conducts rigorous a review by investigators of that relative material for compliance to the realm of c’s criteria.

Rigor

The problem with abstractions is that they tend to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Flipping that on its head mean that those lower ordered details must be highly systemic and consistent with requirements supporting the objective of unification, exactly because unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration, entering science, not after you get there. In the case of core constructs forming the foundation levels of a given EIM they must apply isotropically across the entire entanglement gradient in both emergent and convergent vectors. Abstractions are also related to one another under mode shifted supervenience. This means that those details must dovetail.

Truth or Context

True vs Truth — True perspective of truth.

Epistemologically the source of truth matters, and there exists more than one epistemology. Elegant Reasonism joins that group distinguishing itself sourcing truth as a function of the unified Universe and statistically weighting all other epistemologies relative to and respective of their ability to accomplish that same goal. Registered users here may review a few in our User Library. Usually the source of truth is what distinguishes one epistemology from another. The source of truth for all fully compliant Elegant Reasonism based treatise is the unified Universe.

One technique we use sorting related concepts and constructs is to require their articulation in the same sentence such that the reader can tell them apart from one another. Those who like to tinker around are encouraged to engage and embrace everything here. Our contention is that ultimately you will come to the same conclusion we did. Paying close attention to the rules will save you lots of headaches. Never tweak in isolation. Always tweak an iteration, not an accepted enumeration. Otherwise systemic affects will overwhelm the ability to perceive the effects in how your tweaks affected the holistic whole, and you the investigator are part of that consideration. We must never forget that what is between our own ears is intrinsically part of what must be considered. That is one reason, but by no means the only reason, that Bayesian Analytics are employed by design.

Debates over any given assertion, going forward, are going to likely involve whether or not the assertion being made at the podium closes to unification, and if so please answer the standard root cause analysis questions. The same is true if the assertion does not close to unification. The education shop here enables schools, clubs, and indeed global enterprise of all sizes to enable such discussions by having wearable identification for the perspective that they have been charged with. To make the debate demonstration even more effective besides having member wear hats and shirts provide each with their respective mug and a different color of Koolaid for each to further cement the perspective for their audience. Each debate member must represent their assigned EIM to the exclusion of all others. That is to say they need to stay in character. Such a demonstration would likely be very entertaining for the students in the audience. This is something to have fun with but also to teach the nature of how differing truths also change the nature of what constitutes a compelling argument.

Mode Shifting Evidence

Those used to the ‘peer review’ argument just got handed a more complex task. Birds of a feather flock together. The question then becomes which proverbial hat is that flock wearing and does their constitution close? Remember, until relatively recently all of civilization was committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). A different question that must be rhetorically asked is if a certain group is ardent in their position but they can not close their argument to unification, who really constitutes an expert now? Other issues involve mode shifting evidence to reconsider what constitutes evidence in the larger tapestry and relative to the unified Universe. These issues are not likely to subside quickly. Consequently we very strongly encourage everyone to engage in transformational debate employing as much empathy and compassion as possible.

Recognizing that all this is new to most people, we wanted to reiterate that, today, the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) which closes to unification is The Emergence Model. The Elegant Reasonism plurality requirement is that multiple EIMs be employed and that at least one of them must close to unification. That The Emergence Model is employed is a ‘today’ statement. There is no requirement necessarily to specifically use The Emergence Model, it’s just that happens to be the only EIM at the moment meeting the requirements. If you or some group develops a better EIM than that, we applaud your efforts and accomplishment. That eventuality only makes Elegant Reasonism stronger and more powerful than it already is. An ideal scenario would be to employ a plurality of EIMs and they all close to unification so in that way we might surround reality with interpretations of it to better understand how reality instantiates what we perceive.

Focus, Resolution and Drive to Simplicity

Elegant Reasonism itself is simple to the point of elegance and that is in essence where it got its name. It seems complicated not because of what it is, but because our routine is more familial and Elegant Reasonism is different. Consequently it feels different and takes some getting used to. There is in psychology something called Stockholm Syndrom. Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including child abuse, coach-athlete abuse, relationship abuse and sex trafficking. Treatment includes psychotherapy (“talk therapy”) and medications if needed. LEEs Empiricism Trap has ensnared and otherwise captured and constrained darned near everyone who has ever practiced science. Our experience has been that individuals who are highly invested in what we loosely term status quo thinking almost inevitably, perhaps predictably, wind up transitioning through standard stages of grief dealing and coping with paradigm shifts associated with gaining the precipice enabling them to both perceive and engage the unified Universe. They have been blinded by success of the old ways of thinking. Part of the point is that insights will never be received or recognized because shock, denial, anger, and bargaining are in the way. It is for these reasons we strongly encourage transformational deployment of Elegant Reasonism with healthy doses of empathy and compassion. No human alive today has not committed LEEs, we are all guilty. The question is how we move forward with dilligence, rigor, and perseverance in order to maximize our ability to exploit the unified Universe.

Probably the very last thing any expected was that someting would come along that transformed fundamental interpretative context. Suprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Science Is The Philosophy Of Nature

If in your mind you segregate philosophy and science just because the latter employs laboratories, experiments, then you ignore thousands of years of history. Modern science depends on something called Empiricism, but what (we ask rhetorically here) is Empiricism? Empiricism is one of many Epistemologies. What is an epistemology? We have covered these things in other posts and invite you to explore those for these answers. The short answer here is all of these things are branches within philosophy. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge, of which Empiricism is but one of more than several. Distinguishing epistemologies from one another one might simplistically, perhaps arguably, use their respective sources of truth to discern those distinctions. Elegant Reasonism sources its truth as a function of the unified Universe. Therein lay a fundamental issue in as much as human physiology is not designed to directly perceive every aspect of reality. For example, our eyes only perceive a narrow bandwidths of the electromagnetic spectrum which we call visible light for exactly these reasons. We don’t directly perceive magnetism, but some animals do, the Coelacanth is an example.

The real point here is that because of LEEs Empiricism Trap, and other issues, and because here science is inextricably part of philosophy, just with more precise equipment and perhaps standards that must be met in order to support the employed epistemology which happens to be Empiricism, more often than not. What was needed was an escape mechanism that allowed us to better discern and distinguish multiple theories in which all consequences were the same and which agreed with experiment. The answer to that predicament turned out to be the degree to which any given theory held affinity with the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism integrated that requirement into its intrinsic design. Consequently Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then you are more than likely looking at the bark on the proverbial tree and have missed the proverbial forest. We give you the spacetime-mass interface as an example, across which nothing real can transition without first conversion to energy, thus preventing and precluding employment of a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in the same frame of reference. That hard cold fact alone should not prompt abandonment of that particular EIM but it should motivate you to further understand the logical nature imposed by it. The insight that what Albert Einstein created is absolutely 100% logically correct should prompt insights relative to and respective of logically correct views of real systems because modern information science shows us that there can be more than one view of the same real system.

The Cogent Description of M5

Click the link above to read that description, we’re not repeating it here for a variety of reasons, least of all the need to maintain a single point making that statement, not many. All registered users here can share that link to all other registered users and it will resolve so they can read it for the benefit of everyone.

Status quo thinking can not generate a single paragraph, fully compliant with the realm of the c’s, which articulates the unified Universe. The reason they can not accomplish that is that the EIM on which they employ will never close to unification, and never is a long time. Inevitably someone reading this will stomp their feet and yell that such positive assertions should never be made in science, and perhaps that is true. However, let us point something out. The minute anyone has a compelling argument and some folks are in obvious denial to that argument it’s time to pull out the stops. If for no other reason than this train has left the station. That said let’s unpack the statement and raise the strategic issues. First we must recognize that unification demands valid geometry and all valid geometry requires a valid common real geometric basis for all real objects in every frame of reference, not just a select few. All reference frames and more than just the objects in those frames must be linked, the frames themselves must be linked, if they are to be considered real. Next we must fully couple all forces, fundamental or otherwise, to every real object in all those various reference frames. Historically the status quo modeling reality has never been able to accomplish this to the point that they rationalize away the need to do so. When we stack simultaneous truths with Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), and multiple logical views of the same real system we have something of a conundrum. Parsing those various problems down we must inventory the core constructs and study, in detail, every single abstraction and the source of truth its details philosophically represent. Take especial note that we just swam upstream out of science and into philosophical territory. The core constructs most EIMs employ are: energy, mass, space, and time. Herein status quo thinking is best represented by M1. M1 manifests relationships between its defined core constructs such that there is a spacetime-mass interface across which nothing real can transition without first conversion to energy, and that hard cold fact is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. That single hard cold fact precludes employing a common real geometric basis for all real objects in the same or any reference frame, and it is that hard cold fact which acts as the basis for the assertion that the status quo will never accomplish unification. To them that would mean abandoning everything they know.

The opportunity Elegant Reasonism represents is not abandonment, but rather to capitalize on what it is we already think we know, and then to mode shift that into alignment with the unified Universe. The model that Albert Einstein created in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue necessary to gain the precipice of unification. We must treat it as if it were exactly, and exclusively, that (e.g. logically correct). Again, just for the record and because so many people may be encountering this article before anything else, Einstein was not wrong, he was just logically correct. Also the problem he was working to solve was not unification, it was the constancy of the speed of light in contemporary interferometer experiments. What happens if an ardent M1 thinker attempts to craft a single cogent paragraph? The answer is that it fails as soon as it runs head long into issues of scale. Grand elaborations and rationalizations about why we can not connect quantum mechanics with cosmology or why quantum computing is not delivering the results we expected from it. The answer is simple. Mode shift your investigation and you will find your insights, but be prepared as they may not be what you wanted to find. We can not encourage strongly enough for global enterprise become intimately familiar with our presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact.

Click the title link of this section. Read the cogent description of M5. Then make your own independent conclusion, or at least begin your journey toward the unified Universe. Don’t wait for someone else to tell you what you should think. Here is a small test you can do before you click that link and read that characterization. Educator’s might use this in classrooms. Ask students why Newton’s Laws are true. Collect sample answers. Ask them to declare all real objects in those Event Frames (e.g. reference frames of interaction). If they ignore spacetime in their answers, make them include it if they believe it is a real construct. Make them see the spacetime-mass interface. Make them consider why quantum gravity experiments are failing left and right. When all of that reaches its crescendo show them the cogent description of M5 and ask them why in that context Newton’s Laws are true. Show them, or have them look at, the available white papers on the process and the M5 EIM if you like. Now compare the earlier answers to the latter answers and open a general discussion about Elegant Reasonism. You may expose them to Concept Sieves and EMCS01 where those laws are among 400+ other concepts explored during the original systems review.

The cogent description of M5 has enabled us to characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang and a great deal more. Through Elegant Reasonism we are enabled to explore linkages across all domains of discourse and their respective detail sets relative to and respective of the unified Universe including subjects as far removed as economics via Ludwig von Mises body of work and art appreciation via Susanne K Langer’s body of work. There are many examples in the User Library for registered users to reference and review.

Executive Summary

Because something is simple does not mean necessarily that it is easy to understand. Centuries ago people thought the Earth was flat. Hell, just a couple of years ago a reasonably smart guy built a rocket (e.g. he was at least smart enough to build that rocket and it did get him to altitude – where his real problems began) to launch himself to several thousand feet to prove that the Earth was in fact flat. He failed, but more importantly he died in the attempt. If there was ever an example of someone in Denial, that’s it. The Earth is not flat and the actual real Universe is in fact unified, regardless of how entrenched you are in denial. We hold it self-evident that the unified Universe exists and that you are real and inside it, if for no other reason you are reading this material right now. The stages of grief outlined above are useful not only in communicating with others but introspectively within ourselves as well. It is important to recognize these aspects of our own status in order to properly assess the paradigms we individually use to perceive and engage our own existence.

There is no silver bullet. Insights must be delivered in context of the process and framework producing them or they will be taken out of context. Once you have successfully gained the precipice of unification, never again will you perceive things around you in the same manner ever again. I can share with you that in our experience, once you are on that particular precipice, there is no going back. That first page in our original systems review notes is there for a reason. If you are not prepared for this journey don’t turn that page. If you are ready for a noble quest to understand, and engage reality on a whole new level, then by all means, please join us. The vista via that precipice is spectacular.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights!

Sic’em