Consulting Approach

Part of the challenge discerning the distinctions between concepts of confidence vs conceit is that one needs to reverse engineer the deviation spiral in order to understand present circumstances and that might prove problematic. Then too professional scientists and engineers should contemplate the ‘baloney detection kit‘ and the source of truth it seeks, because if you don’t mode shift all of these various concepts you might just be quite surprised who is holding the baloney. Consider a somewhat more aggressive Mayan astronomical student in Feynman’s discussion below. The question is to whom do the terms apply more and would that application be different contemporaneously? Here we focus on the example later in this video from the 1950’s about a Mayan astronomer and his student where, from hindsight, we juxtapose these two terms.

The challenge, of course, is that we have no way of knowing because that student’s ideas have not entered broad awareness. Depending on the degree of development of those ideas makes the somewhat conceited assertion that because they are developed, that they will be accepted. Acceptance remains to be witnessed. Never underestimate the power of denial in any argument. In terms of the Baloney Detection Kit (below and which we mode shifted) the question becomes who has more baloney in their pockets; the astronomer or the student?

As you come to understand Elegant Reasonism the greater your critical situational awareness thinking will be. Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) establish fundamental interpretative context of reality. Let us presume for a moment you are entrenched tightly within Empirical interpretation and you believe you are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. Such an individual has fallen prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap and is tightly in the confines of that type of logic trap. The problems here are several. One is that focus is misplaced. Such an individual erroneously believes they are looking at nature and consequently walk right past the EIM manifesting the basis of their interpretation. Strategically at issue here is whether or not you are indeed working to assure the integrity of the mechanisms establishing context through which we surround and attempt to collar reality, or if you believe you are working directly with reality oblivious to such pursuits (in which case you ask all the wrong questions).

If investigators understand they are working with logically correct EIMs then they proceed from a different perspective and that is crucial and key. Conversely if any happen to be completely mired within LEEs Empiricism Trap then they are likely not even aware such questions exist much less be asked.

We could build a list of traits or attributes here and perhaps any given individual would look at it and agree that those others are conceited (but not me). It has been said that change only begins when you tire of your own bullshit, but that presumes you recognize it in the  first place. Normalization of deviation is a phrase emerging over the last decades and represents circumstances that have led to some fairly catastrophic events in history. Ironically representing two such events in the same place with the second actually investigating the first. The RMS Titanic in 1912 being the first, and the OceanGate Submersible Titan being the second of this particular example.

Both Captain Smith and Stockton Rush had to die and perhaps not realizing their true situation until it was way too late to do anything about it. The larger question here is how we (collective we) facilitate gaining the precipice of unification for the most people with the least amount of drama involved. Once Elegant Reasonism is more familial such that it can at least be wielded in a rudimentary manner, Knowledge Dependencies are more readily apparent. The greater Elegant Reasonism conversational skills are effectively wielded the more effective critical situational awareness thinking, in a fully compliant context, becomes relevant. Paradigm shifts are the responsibility of the receiver and to that end those individuals have to want to understand. Mode Shifting Arguments is one thing, but Mode Shifting Science for some is difficult to comprehend due to many issues, the least of which is coping and dealing with the standard stages of grief associated with the necessary paradigm shifts those individuals must affect to great effect.

We argued in a recent article that Unification represents such a situation. Deviations began the moment the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all constructs considered real within all reference frames was rationalized away. There are a long laundry list of deviations and we will not parse them all here as they are discussed elsewhere across our network presence and no human that has ever lived has not committed the same mistakes. Consequently everyone is equally guilty and it’s time we move past any dispersion of any sort. A number of years ago the Baloney Detection Kit came into vogue in an attempt to ‘discern who to listen to’. The point is not about credentials, position, titles, or even wealth, but the content of the argument you make. The point is humans have a finite life span and because of that we can not consume all available information. We must, by necessity, chose wisely, appropriately, and effectively. We must ask the correct questions. We must know when to swim into the current and when to swim with it, and on occasion at right angles to it.

Rhetorical questions:

1. Do scientists and engineers work with reality or abstractions of it?
2. Does status quo thinking modeling reality close to unification?
3. If your manner of thinking about reality was:
   1. Logically correct in as much as it agreed with experiment, associated mathematics, and the manner its model established those various contexts
   2. All consequences calculated were as expected or predicted
   3. Experimental evidence resulting agreed with original expectations and premise
   4. However, that thinking does not close to unification…
4. Can status quo science employ a common real geometric basis point for every real construct in every frame of reference? How or Why not?
   1. Is your reference frame scale invariant (e.g. does it apply at all scales)?
   2. Is your reference frame isotropic (e.g. applicable in the same manner everywhere in all circumstances)?
5. What does it take to fully couple all real objects with all appropriate real forces and what, exactly, instantiates those forces such that work is accomplished?

The question then is concerns why all of that does not close to unification. Inevitably the question becomes ‘can’ those efforts close? That is to say is it philosophically possible for those constructs to close to unification? The answer to that is highly dependent on the particular model, its rules, constructs, and the model’s intrinsic nature.

Hindsight

The epistemology of Empiricism’s scientific congruence is established through repeated observation (in theory), but those observations are based on how we interpret what we humans witnessed and that in turn is based on how we have defined the abstractions so employed. We call such inventions core constructs mostly due to their highly systemic nature relative to all other constructs.

1. If you erroneously presume you are working directly with reality, then you likely do not comprehend the implications of the logical nature of status quo thinking modeling reality. That is to say you are committing Langer Epistemology Errors and neither understand the implications nor ramifications of such commissions.
2. Such mistakes will ardently push logically correct concepts that are in fact derivatives of logic artifacts resulting from the inability to close to unification. Examples are the multiverse, inflationary theory, superposition in quantum computing, properly positioning of the quantum wave function, quantum gravity, time travel, etc., etc. Such concepts are dead end red herrings.

The original systems review simply asked why what it was we thought could or could not philosophically close to unification. Not until one realizes that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without conversion to energy is the logical nature of status quo thinking modeling reality realized. When you comprehend the implications and ramifications resulting from what Albert Einstein created beginning about 1905 being absolutely 100% logically correct will you begin to fully comprehend the strategic clues that represents pointing directly at th path leading to the precipice of unification. The correct question is “If status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification, what will and what is necessary in order to illuminate those to illustration?”. The answer to that took from 2004 to 2019 to develop and we are still working to get people to understand. Not because what we developed is complicated, because it is sistatus quo thinking modeling realitymple to the point of elegance, but because pass successes blind so many to the path forward. Humans detest change. We love the familial surroundings we have invested in our individual nests.

Rhetorically we ask again: Can you employ a single real common geometric basis point for all real constructs within a given frame of reference. The answer is either yes or no, not some elaborate rationalization.

Belief you are working directly with reality constitutes commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and also represents a Sigma Defect.

Compelling Confidence

Anyone playing a Devil’s Advocate part would rightly point out all of the experimental successes of the past. Our counter would be to point out every single one we tested all mode shifted. Did we test every experiment ever conducted by science? Of course not, but we did test a relatively significant sample and all of those mode shifted. Our original systems review notes are online and available for your inspection.

A number of major concepts were developed as a function of that review:

• Elegant Reasonism utility process and the technological framework it employs
  • Rules
    • Acknowledge and avoid commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in order to not fall prey to any logic trap.
    • Recognize and understand to full cognition the implications and ramifications of Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs)
      • There are eight recognized primary EIMs enumerated M0 through M7. Iterations on these baseline EIMs are handled via established rules.
      • EIMs manifest fundamental foundational context whose relationships and patterns form distinct boundaries. It is therefore important to recognize that assertions about one EIM from within the context of another have been pulled out of original context and are prohibited as a result. Primary context is established via the 2D Articulation Layer and analyzed by subsequent framework analytical layers (see below).
        • NOTE: Not all patterns and relationships are direct, some are highly restful (e.g. See REST).
    • Investigations should employ a plurality of EIMs as appropriate, but one of them must close to unification (see Realm of the c’s).
  • Realm of the c’s
  • Utility Process Phases:
    • P1.0: Recognition
    • P2.0: Illumination
    • P3.0: Analysis
    • Treatise
  • Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF)
  • Translation Matrices
    • Concept Sieves
      • EMCS01 – 403 equations double checked for mode shifting
      • EMCS02 – Physical Properties also checked for mode shifting
      • EMCS03 – Thermodynamics
    • Analytical Layers:
      • 2D Articulation  <— Articulates POI/N manifestation by a plurality of EIMs, and minimally one of which must close to unification
      • Context & Source  <— Historical Context & Source assurance, integrity, abstraction inventory analysis
      • Model Integrity Analysis  <— Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) Analysis for each EIM within the plurality of a given investigation (integrity purposes)
      • M2M re: POI/N Analysis  <— Evidence Chain Pattern Analysis EIM to POI/N and juxtaposition of patterns relative to and respective each EIM
      • Paradigm Statistics  <— POI/N assurance & integrity analysis (e.g. systems review on abstractions representing POI/Ns)
      • Logic Calculus  <— Dove Tail Logic Analysis & Integrity Assurance to interpretive standards within goal & objective requirements (See PDCF Checkpoint Flowchart)
      • Reality Validation  <— Congruence: is reality actually reflected (e.g. BX442, z-factors, Does It Close? qustions, anomalous red or blue shifts?, realm of c’s, etc)
      • Bayesian Analytics  <— Integrates belief systems into interpretative analysis before, during, and after investigations (great for education roadmap creation)
      • Heuristics  <— A practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal nor perfect but which is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal
      • Metacognitive Analytics  <— Awareness of investigator’s own thought processes and establishing an understanding of the patterns behind them.
      • Six Sigma  <— Quality management metrics (NOTE: must be done internally relative to and respective of each EIM then again holistically across analytic stacks)
  • Mathematics
    • LaTex implementation here
  • Evidence Chains
  • Presentations
    • Elegant Reasonism Introduction and Overview
    • In Unification’s Wake
  • White Papers
    • Elegant Reasonism White Paper
    • The Emergence Model White Paper
• The Emergence Model
  • Is holistically represented by its logical view M5 and its real view M6.
  • Reference Frames Mode Shifted
    • Event Frames with interacting material real objects
    • Local Frames immersed in space as defined by The Emergence Model and not interacting beyond that boundary
  • Energy Signatures
  • Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

It is important for all investigators and their leadership, team members, administrators, managers and executives to understand that insights should be communicated in context of the utility process and technological framework that developed them. They should never be communicated absent cognitive understanding of how those insights were made manifest. Any such attempt, absent that context, will only confuse and obfuscate effective communications and should be undertaken at your own peril. We very strongly encourage everyone to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally, with great compassion and empathy.

Executive Summary

Any given human is forever compartmentalized by their own physiology. Artificial Intelligence is just as trapped by its physical manifestation. The critical situational awareness thinking required to escape these traps is cognizance of the implications of the hard cold fact that we, all of us, are inside the test tube we are characterizing. We are fundamentally and intrinsically a part of all that is real, but only a part. Unification represents the holistic whole, everywhere. Reality instantiates the various logically correct views (e.g. EIMs) we have of it. We therefore must seek to surround and collar reality rather than be arrogant and conceited enough to declare what we believe it to be. We must humbly reflect what we logically think it might be, and always hold open that another instantiation might be possible. Clues indicating such possibility should be impetus to seek out that incremental EIM rather than cast doubt on what has been accomplished so far. Each recognized EIM has its useful purpose and provides valued insights from its particular precipice. It is important to understand those various points of view in order to understand the dynamics of the unified Universe.

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification