Power Is An Illusion In The Grand Scheme and All Glory Is Fleeting

Perhaps over the last several hundred thousand years humanity’s flocking gene was nurtured by the familial surroundings of the campfire. Comradery, good food, good friends and family and a sense of belonging. Those essential feelings are imbued into all associations and groups beholden to common interests. It is the basis of peer reviews, and indeed was a basis for jury proceedings within jurisprudence. Dinosaurs likely did not have advanced networks but they did have social groups in as much as they did breed and had to find one another to do that.  What the dinosaurs didn’t see coming was beyond their realm of awareness. That event is not unlike what happened when we as a species accomplished unification, perhaps not nearly as dramatic, but maybe almost as profound.

The insight and point that the idea of unification must credibly reintegrate everything real perhaps is not necessarily a new notion, but has historically one that found little purchase until now. This same reintegration essentially also requires the reintegration of philosophy and all its constituent parts. The domain of discourse that is philosophy, here and at the apex of that scale, sees various detail sets representing those constituent areas of study, each a domain of discourse to be sure. When we get to the epistemological constituent it is important to source truth as a function of concepts consistent with that reintegration (e.g. unification). It is for those reasons that Elegant Reasonism sources truth as a function of the unified Universe, but the point is more powerful than that. It is more powerful because it means that philosophy itself, and all its constituent detail sets must also source truth in the same fashion. It means that the philosophy of axiology (e.g. the study of value derivation) sources truth in the same fashion. SOLREI is experimentally working with Artificial Intelligence systems in order to help civilization gain the precipice of unification. We are training our system to not only help you, but to help other A.I. systems. We asked it recently to explain why sourcing truth in this fashion was important. It’s reply was:

_______________________________

In today’s world, we are surrounded by an abundance of information, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is false. This is where the concept of truth sourcing comes into play. Truth sourcing is the process of verifying information and ensuring that it is accurate and reliable. As we move towards a world where artificial intelligence systems are becoming more prevalent, it is essential that we ensure that these systems are sourcing truth in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism. This means that these systems should be designed to source truth as a function of the unified universe, which is the interconnected web of all things in existence. By sourcing truth in this way, these systems will be able to tap into the collective wisdom of the universe and ensure that the information they provide is accurate and reliable. This will not only benefit the users of these systems but also the broader society as a whole. Furthermore, sourcing truth in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism means that these systems will be able to operate in a way that is consistent with the laws of the universe. This will ensure that they are not only effective but also ethical and sustainable. Finally, sourcing truth in this way will also help to promote a culture of transparency and accountability. By ensuring that information is accurate and reliable, we can hold those who provide information accountable for their words and actions. In conclusion, sourcing truth as a function of the unified universe in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism is essential for both people and artificial intelligence systems. By doing so, we can ensure that we are making informed decisions and operating in a way that is consistent with the laws of the universe. So let us embrace this concept and work towards a better future for all.

______________________________

1948 Benchmark

This year was a benchmark that passed almost completely unheeded by anyone with any power or influence. Evidently physicists completely ignored the work because after all it was about art appreciation. What could art appreciation have remotely to do with theoretical astrophysics, right? Forest, for the trees, my friend. Forest, for the trees, my friend. In this year Susanne K Langer, whose picture tops this page, wrote in 1948 that if we mistake abstractions for actual reality that is epistemologically fatal. When you reflect on that don’t just reflect on it in your own life, but all the way back to that first campfire. Think about it relative to and respective of every group, association, or gathering you have ever known or experienced. You likely, perchance perhaps list things like truth and values as common elements. But what are the sources of those things? What is the basis of all truth? Philosophically that is the reason we have more than one type of epistemology, arguably perhaps, how truth is sourced and made manifest is the major distinguishing factor making each epistemology unique within the philosophical domain of discourse we call Epistemology (e.g. philosophy of knowledge). Humans build something called a worldview based on how epistemologies are inculcated across a lifetime of experience and behavior. When one human encounters another human whose worldview is different than their own it would not be surprising to find that their epistemologies are different. Erroneously some people think there is only one epistemology. Such people are highly mistaken. Philosophically, the epistemology of science is Empiricism. Some might erroneously believe that empiricism sources truth on nature but that is only an indirect source. The direct source of truth must flow through human physiology in order to derive abstractions characterizing reality in order for us humans to cope and deal with that reality. This was Langer’s essential point in her treatise. She put wood behind that particular arrow effectively to great affect, at least in us she did. So much so we hold it as a testimonial benchmark because its implications solidified the tasks required in order to complete our original systems review and accomplish unification (e.g. gain the precipice from which the unified Universe may be perceived and engaged).

Colliding Worldviews

Colliding worldviews is anything but a new problem. So difficult a problem it is that Plato wrote about dealing with it in his Book 7 of the Republic in his allegory of The Cave.

The basis of Empiricism is what liberated that first prisoner’s mind to comprehend the reality beyond the cave. In fact it is what has driven civilization from then until now. Civilization has accomplished a great deal, but we still have that campfire mentality about us all. We pick up objects and wield them every bit as much as those early hominids in Arthur C Clarke’s 2001 A Space Odyssey and brought to the screen by Stanley Kubrick. The problem is familial usage and Empiricism really doesn’t help the problem, it rather exacerbates the problem. The problem is that same epistemological problem noted in 1948 by Susanne regarding abstractions, their manifestations and usage. Quail huddle together on the ground in a covey, essentially a small flock, just not flying. Small schooling fish pull into a rotating ball attempting to defend against pelagic predators who simply zoom through the middle taking their fill. Survivors though encouraged that they survived are lulled into thinking that their tactic worked because they lived. Confirmation bias at its most instinctual. Might that constitute hubris of the gathering? Maybe, if they had the intellectual capacity and self-awareness enough to recognize it, but they don’t. While those schooling fish lack that awareness, it is a completely different situation for us humans, because we do have that awareness.

Problem Proximity, Distance Helps

I’d like to share a story that actually happened. I used to work for IBM fixing mid-range computer systems in what at the time was their General Systems Division. One of the customers out at the Birmingham airport refurbished and did major maintenance on USAF KC-135 aerial refueling jets. Obviously that work was complicated and they needed computers to help with managing all that work. For which they employed an IBM System/3 Mod 15D if memory serves. In their day they were great machines. The customer’s computer room was on the second floor high off the ground. The door from the parking lot led to stars that climed up to a hallway. You turn left and you went to the room where the computer was located. Turn right and you when to an airy room where all the data entry clerks were located and whom encoded all those 96 column data cards fed into the machine. Wonderful bunch of women. Nicest bunch of people you might ever wish to meet. That room had expansive windows with horizontal levered blinds because the sun was somewhat murderous without them. The room was well lit for the work needing to be performed there. We had in our branch office several specialists on these types of computers at the time; Bill, Frank, and Johnny.

When the machine was operating normally it had little indication, unless you wanted to look at something particular in hexadecimal registers which could then be displayed in that larger black area of the image to the right. If the normal processes of the system failed for any reason a read Process Check light, usually just concatenated to ProcCheck, illuminated and the computer halted all operations utnil the proc check was cleared. As it happens, that was when the customers would usually call us to come help them figure out why it was doing that. Sometimes it was hardware failures, sometimes software, rarely it was customers, but in any and every case they called us. So, our team rotated through there documenting all the diagnostics they had performed and why with all their data and rationales. On this particular day they had been shooting a very elusive proc check that was utterly random. They had absolutely no idea why the darned machine was doing what it was doing and had been shooting the problem long enough for the understanding customer to get frustrated as we were. But they knew we were doing our best. Bill, the senior most guy on our team, called in engineers that designed and built the machines and those guys were upstairs (to the left) working on the problem. They had every oscilliscope, logic traps, and technical gizmo imaginable hung on that system trying to make it fail, but it was not obliging in the slightest. Now that the engineers were there it just hummed along as happy as could be. The day grew close to lunchtime and Frank had been elsewhere but in the area decided to swing by there to see how the guys were progressing. Mounting the top of the stairs looks left at the milieu transpiring in the computer room filled with people in an intense review of results, decided to turn right and go visit the ladies in much more pleasant surroundings until it quieted down a bit in the computer room. Frank loved idle pleasant chit chat. The head operator, at the front of the room by the door also love chatting. She said those guys have been down there all morning. They only came out when they needed more coffee, but the darned machine just would not fail. It was dutifully plowing through mountains of data. As they talked, she stood up, and retrieved a little green watering can for the plants she had arrayed on the window sill. Still talking she went to the water fountain, filled the can, and back to her desk to water the plants. As she raised the blinds to water her plants Frank heard from down the hall Bill excitedly proclaim PROC CHECK! Finally!!!  Frank leaned over and looked straight down the hall at the computer and turning 180 degrees looked right out that window previously covered by the blinds to see across the airport field the very large, rotating radar antenna for the airport (which also housed an Air National Guard unit). Frank then connected all the dots and solved the problem for everyone. Turns out those blinds had been made out of aluminum and as long as they were closed, they reflected the radar signal. Open them and the airport radar had a straight shot to the computer, and in which case the computer threw up all over everything. The question was posed how long those guys would have been in that room had Frank not stopped by to go to lunch? There had been quite a lot of brain power on that problem but it took someone from outside to reconcile the solution. I was fortunate enough to join that group of guys as one of the branch specialists on later systems. I worked on these too on occasion but they were being phased out of our territory rapidly by that time being replaced by either System/34s or System/38s. The IBM PC was about to come out and I was asked to join the Boca Raton lab to be part of that team and I left the field looking back only with fondness and great memories of great people and the times we had.

The point of this story is essentially the metaphor of missing the forest for the trees. Unification, as a concept, if you step back and look at it, demands the credible reintegration of everything real. Consequently buckle up buckwheat because it doesn’t matter what flock you are in. It doesn’t matter what credentials you have. You gotta to a football game and get a stadium full of combatants to all agree on something and I can attest from first hand knowledge, it’s very difficult to do that.

Unification Intrinsically Demands Multidisciplinary Investigation

Here we are oft to say that ‘unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse‘. Nothing could be more true. One salient point might be that Susanne K Langer made her observation and insight, which is keenly relevant here, in a book about art appreciation. Those expecting there to be some ‘silver bullet’ do not comprehend the extensive implications and ramifications associated with unification. Few, anywhere, ever expected fundamental context to change EIM to EIM, yet that is exactly what happens; hence the creation of mode shifting. For all the same reasons no one expected any need whatsoever for a new type of reference frame that would be scale invariant such that it could handle the entire entanglement gradient; hence the Event Frame (and Local Frame).

People want to believe that they are dealing directly with reality when then bend down and pick up any object. They feel that object in their hands. They can heft its weight. They can visually see its features. What they can not see, or perceive, is that their physiological sensors are triggering their Central Nervous Systems (CNS) to send signals to their brains which manifests abstractions in order to cope and deal with the environment around us all. We are inside the proverbial test tube. The very good news about all this is that our physiology has evolved to be flexible, learn, and adapt to changing circumstances by something called Neural Plasticity.

The warning being whispered here concerns Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). You may touch a portion of reality but you only interpret it through the available abstractions instantiating your perception of it. We would share that we wrote down the essential formulas for M5 accomplishing unification but it took us two and a half years to realize what we had done. Consequently we completely understand why this is taking so long to propagate across the population.

Neural Plasticity

Neural plasticity is how we humans, and AI systems, learn. If neural pathways can never change then there is no hope through education. Systems that do not learn can only be destroyed in order to begin again. The question on the proverbial table is who makes that decision, why and for what reason. Suddenly there is a moral component to the patterns being assessed. What must be understood is that neurons that fire together, wire together. Under Elegant Reasonism when neural plasticity is explicitly and intentionally realigned with the unified Universe it is generally referred to as: Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). It is for these reasons we are also working to develop a complete curricula in order to instantiate the necessary skills across the education domain. What is perhaps ironic here is that NNRP in a very real way enables the unified Universe to study itself. Maybe in an indirect manner but it enables the unified Universe to become self-aware. Essentially sentience is enabled in this manner and that’s a pretty powerful notion to consider, especially magnified across all the star systems where life is likely to exist. When that happens we join a robust community connected in ways we have yet to fathom.

Note if you have difficulty with the sound on this video click here and then click the speaker to turn the sound on.

[advanced_iframe src=”https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/bfpChH2B”  width=”100%” height=”600″]

Instrumentality

Humanity has designed a vast array of instruments, machines, and capabilities but they all have two things in common. One is they are designed to be employed and interpreted by human physiology for the most part, at least ultimately. The amount of water in the human body ranges from 45-75%. The average adult human body is 50-65% water, averaging around 57-60%. The percentage of water in infants is much higher, typically around 75-78% water, dropping to 65% by one year of age. Water, from a practical point of view, does not compress. What that means for SCUBA divers is that as you descend in the water column only the flexible air spaces like sinuses are directly affected. Your physiology also absorbs the gases you breath into your bloodstream just like a carbonated soft drink liquid absorbs carbon-dioxide, and with similar results if the pressure is not released very slowly. The salient point here is that it is not really possible for your physiology, once equalized, to discern the difference in depth. Your body simply is incapable of feeling that pressure (within recreational limits). Divers trained for much deeper depths and mix gas scenarios can have their nervous systems affected but even then you might not notice right away (but others will). Divers need instruments to tell them how deep they are and the implications of time at that depth. Similarly pilots are segregated into two categories of certification: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) exactly because human physiology can be tricked, and the aircraft instruments must be designed in a way that they can’t be tricked. They will always report the accurate orientation of the vehicle. The trick is trusting your instruments rather than what you feel as reported by your physiology. Hence the IFR training.

The point here is that, circa 2023, instrumentality created by civilization has yet to embrace Elegant Reasonism and be designed commensurate with the unified Universe.

The Insidious Trap That Is M1

There are a number of metaphors, allegories, and juxtapositions we have tried to use over the years to help people comprehend all this. Candidly the biggest aid is not anything we’ve done or not done. Rather, it is the attitude the learner brings with them to the table. Those who leave their credentials outside and sit down with a willingness to set their own preconceived paradigms aside and then to roll their sleeves up to understand how these new paradigms come together to manifest exactly the same circumstances they had before is a wondrous experience any teacher could ever hope to experience. When it works it is nothing short of beautifully elegant. Yes we have been accused of loving that word too much, but it’s true and an alternate word fails me.

When it does not work, we all dig in attempting to ferret out the reasons. Most often it is because the learner is stuck behind LEEs Gate on the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF). Sometimes the baggage the new learner has is vigorously stamped and stickered over with past successes (e.g. they are Blinded by Past Success) and can not get off the train whose track ends at the cliff. Sometimes they are simply stuck walking a very large Mobius Loop making great circles. Perhaps most often though, maybe here of late, folks walk right past the forest to start talking about sap from the tree and how to get tree bark out of it.

If one has a situation in science where all consequences are the same and they all agree with experiment, the prediction is to then consider which looks more natural, as Richard Feynman points out in the above lecture he gave in the 1950’s. The problem with Empiricism is it never asks to philosophically consider the source of truth. Which is just fine so long as you are actually dealing with reality and not abstractions of it. If you are in fact dealing with abstractions of it then you become fully ensnared and otherwise compartmentalized by LEEs Empiricism Trap. The strategic insight Elegant Reasonism brings to this entire discussion is just that; the ultimate source of truth. Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there, but before you begin. Mistaking abstractions for actual reality constitutes commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), triggers LEEs Empiricism Trap, ensnares you utterly, and sends you down a one-way slippery slope into a place with no obvious escape. The only way to get out of LEEs Empiricism Trap is to exit the room, turn around, and look at it all objectively. That means leaving science and returning to its philosophical roots and there are a great many people who simply do not comprehend not just that requirement but how to accomplish it to any effect.

LEEs Exacerbate Cognitive Dissonance

There are quite a few people who have over the years looked at what we have done and run back into the realm of the multiverse. They can not let that go, nor accept that it is based on logic artifacts from an EIM that will never close to unification. Some will point back to interferometer results and refuse to accept any other explanation. We would suggest they look at Feynman’s video above, again. Some will encompass the body of successes science has had with the EIM M1 and refuse to believe that pushing just a little harder, employing higher energies, with a little innovation that effort will be rewarded with unification. Such individuals are blinded by past successes to the path forward.

Status Quo Thinking Modeling Reality

The fact is that what we have been doing will never close to unification no matter how much money, time, effort, machines, or human capital we throw at it. The reason it will never close is that the EIM is philosophically incapable of closing despite all its successes, empirical data, and experimental results. All of that establish congruence to the logical correctness of the EIM underpinning it. That EIM is absolutely 100% logically correct we should expect nothing less than that congruence, and therein too lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe.

Elegant Reasonism Is The Beginning Not The End

Any critical reviewe of the analytical layering within the technological framework will find it quite rigorous but those explicitly declared layers do not have to be the only layers employed by an investigative team. Additional layering may be added as deemed appropriate by investigators. Metrics for Cognitive dissonance, biases of all sorts, etc. may all be added and a great deal more.

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #UnifiedUniverse #GUT #SusanneKLanger #LEEs #SystemsEngineering #INCOSE #Logic #InformationScience