Empirical Reality? Really?!!

Humanity has been dancing around this mulberry bush for centuries. At its core Empiricism is a function of human physiology. We knew that bush was there but not really what to do about it. Mostly because we and our physiology are inside that particular test tube.Scads of experiments have over the years provided empirical results in logically correct status quo thinking, but deep within and perhaps only subtly, incongruous relationships relative to and respective of the unified Universe left clues if we only asked the correct questions in the proper philosophical context. Modeling Reality must take human physiology into account and context.

• Logical Correctness, empirical testing (e.g. experiments), etc are all necessary but insufficient factors in order to gain the precipixe of unification. Your Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) must also philosophically close to unification. No EIM employing a spacetime-mass interface across which nothing real can transition without first converting to energy will ever philosophically close to unification. Not ever. Next.
• Unification demands the ability to employ a common, real, geometric basis point for all real constructs employed in your Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) and every reference frame must be able to fully couple all real constructs.

If the model underpinning your research can not accomplish those two points, then what you did was logical in nature. It may be empirically correct, but it is logical in its nature. The very strong implication from those circumstances is that you have fallen prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap. Don’t feel bad, everyone who has ever lived on this planet has been ensnared within that particular logic trap, including us.

Inclusive of Bohr’s point above are the entire contents of the Periodic Table, all subatomic particles, all quarks, all virtual particles, etc. Essentially everything can be construed as a set of abstractions. The implications and ramifications of which are quite profound. Do you understand the implications of Neils Bohr’s point in the full context of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and modern information sciences systems engineering? If you mistake abstractions for actual reality it is epistemologically fatal. It is the slippery slope straight into LEEs Empricism Trap and the only exit we are aware of is Elegant Reasonism.

When EIMs Do Not Close, They Manifest Logic Artifacts

Rhetorically, how would you expect clues to make themselves manifest from Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) that do not close to unification? In two words: logic artifacts. A few clues on any list might arguably be exemplified by:

1. The inability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference.
2. The inability to fully couple all forces to all real objects in those reference frames in No 1 above.
3. The inability to instantiate those forces with real constructs.
4. The inability to distinguish logical constructs from real constructs.
5. The inability to discern where abstractions which are logically correct within the context made manifest by a given Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) and the reality it reflects or attempts to characterize. (See Modeling Reality).
6. Can you take No 1 through No 5 above, and fully comply with the realm of c’s in order to write one single paragraph that can credibly manifest everything real spanning all scales and the entanglement gradient?

This list could go on from here but perhaps the point has been made. The question remains though, what happens when your Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) does not close? Saying explanations grow more elaborate is to simple. Do you understand why number 1 is on the above list at all? The answer is that geometry, as a science, requires a basis point. Rationalizing away the need under special circumstances does not eliminate the requirement.

• Cohesion across scales can be lost, for example between quantum mechanics and cosmology
• Galactic acceleration ceases at even further distances. The various circumstances are fundamentally made manifest by the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) context.
• Holding empirical evidence litmus absent fully compliant philosophical closure relative to and respective of the unified Universe does not necessarily illuminate reality to illustration. Commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) only exacerbates this situation.
• Logic artifacts construed as real generate erroneous functions and conditions that only exist within the logical domain of discourse (e.g. they are not real). Schrodinger’s Cat Died, for example. The need for the inflationary theory in order to explain Hubble‘s data in context of Einstein’s model is another example that begins to crumble when the corollary to rapid expansion (e.g. infinite compression) is eliminated due to black hole growth. We then have BX442, GLASS-z13, Bell Inequality Experiments, etc. all of which taken together form a body of clues completely reconciled by Elegant Reasonism.
• Historical model details get confused with erroneous attributions. For example, if you believe mass is variant – did Einstein create and share that belief? A detailed analysis of that situation was conducted by particle physicist Lev B Okun.
• Failure of quantum gravity experiments
• Failure of quantum computing to recognize logical significance of superposition (See Red Herrings)
• The inability to explain time’s arrow (e.g. belief in time-travel)

Many of these issues were presented very early In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions.

Expectations

Those who are completely familial with commission of LEEs expect everyone else to conform. All of their biases are setup to reinforce the worldview manifesting that context. They are neither ready, nor willing, to accept any other worldview.

Bucket of Ice Water

Or more accurately, status quo thinking modeling reality may have more baloney in its pockets than it believes. Perhaps an archaic allegory might be the emperor has no clothes, but it seems way too harsh given everyone is complicit in commission of the root error here. More than likely you are working with abstractions of reality. Several reasons:

1. Commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) (e.g. looping behind LEEs Gate on the PDCF),
2. Failure to recognize the significance of the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point thus precluding the ability to fully couple reference frames, and
3. Because of No 1, logic based EIMs have not been considered in context of Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), and
4. Abstractions tend and trend to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details. Paradigm stacks whose constituents are many highly related abstractions manifest fade of replication errors. Those systemic situations result in incongruity and inefficiencies in many areas, biology for example.

This characterization is really not fair because no human that has ever lived has not committed LEEs, including us. Consequently we are just as guilty of all this as anyone else, but that doesn’t change the situation.

Impetus to Persevere

The exceedingly difficult, and highly bitter, pill to swallow is status quo thinking modeling reality (e.g. M1) relative to and respective of attaining unification through it. We have said it many times here, including in this article, that unification requires the credible reintegration of everything real including all of philosophy and science, and especially those elements dealing with reality. For over a century now, as a civilization, we have rationalized away the need for a common real geometric basis point, and now that point (no pun intended) has come back to bite and haunt us. Philosophically, the constructs and their associated rules (of M1) conspire to create a condition where a common real geometric basis is not possible for all real objects. That is a hard cold fact. Does that invalidate that EIM? Absolutely not. It does however relegate that EIM into the realm of logical views of physical, (e.g. real), systems. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with that, unless you commit LEEs and believe those constructs real in which case down that slippery slope you go into the maw of LEEs Empricism Trap. Circumstances under which extraction is exceedingly difficult because the logical congruity made manifest by a logically correct model creates something of a self-reinforcing delusion that you should stay where you are, to stand pat, but that is the last thing you should do. You will starve and die in that hole. The path forward (e.g. the credible exit from LEEs Empricism Trap) also provides a means to mode shift what it is we think we already know into alignment with the unified Universe. That means we don’t have to start all over from scratch. We can affect something of a marshmallow strategy and surround reality with a plurality of EIMs. The trick is to see how reality instantiates EIMs from all directions and vectors.

Original Systems Review

Our original systems review notes (828 pages, 88 tables, 167 propositions, 403 equations, and 63 thought experiments) are all online here. We have moved well past those early positions, but if you want to review the basis for how we arrived where we did, then it is immediately available right here, right now.

What we did because of those notes was to pursue an Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) that would satisfy the requirements of unification (e.g. not break down in the same manner). We have said this a thousand times but we are going to say it again. Albert Einstein was not wrong, it’s just that he was only logically correct. His objective when he wrote his papers on Relativity was in explaining the constancy in the speed of light resulting from the various interferometer experiments of the time (and now since). What Albert Einstein created, beginning in 1905, is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice from which the unified Universe may both be perceived and engaged via Elegant Reasonism.

Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology which 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) closing to unification: The Emergence Model. In this context, Elegant Reasonism can and should be considered a superset epistemology in as much as Empiricism is integrated but statistically weighted such that it avoids commission of Langer Epistemology Errors and supports full compliance with the realm of c’s including closure to unification. Part of the reason that Empiricism alone is here considered necessary but insufficient is exactly because we are dealing with simultaneous truths where all consequences are the same and agree with experiment, and where current status quo thinking modeling reality (e.g. M1) does not close to unification, but others do (e.g. M5). The primary basis of all science for the last several hundred years has been Empiricism and for all that time, effort, expense, and resources it failed to accomplish unification and the question we wrestled with was why that was so. The Emergence Model developed as a result of Elegant Reasonism reconciled 100% of every test we threw at it, and it survived what at the time were new science situations (e.g. LIGO and now JWST). At every turn it all only gets stronger and more capable. We are happy to have anyone, anywhere, engage it. Try to break it. We have, for over 15 years now, and we can’t break it, but maybe you can. Please contact us if you think we missed something somewhere, anywhere.

Simple To The Point of Elegance

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification