Harnessing Reality

The essential strategy promulgated by Elegant Reasonism, by design, is to surround instantiation of reality through a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) in order to harness actual reality more clearly, and the scenario about harnessing your own potential is actually no different. Humans generally interact with actual reality through abstractions. Abstractions either furnished naturally by human physiology or through abstractions constructed by philosophy and the sciences. Many scientists, engineers, and philosophers through their training have come to believe they are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. Susanne K Langer, in 1948, created a treatise which explained, in some depth, that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal. We now call such mistakes Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs. Because human physiology employs sensors which send signals via the Central Nervous System (CNS) to the Brain which holistically, and automatically, furnish abstractions in order to deal and cope with the reality of our environment, humans are disposed to commit LEEs naturally. We must be taught not to commit them. The problem and challenge is much of academia has inculcated generations not to recognize this issue, much less the implications and ramifications of commiting these mistakes. The danger, and thus the caution, is the slippery slope leading straight into LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Part of the intent of Elegant Reasonism is to take multiple instantiations of foundational context and observe systemic changes within juxtaposed encapsulation boundaries in order to subject those resulting distinctions to analytical rigor and more fully by the scientific method. To be clear it is those distinctions and insights relative to and respective of the unified Universe that are the goal and objective sought by Elegant Reasonism.

The key observational insights stem from the implications and ramifications of LEE commission. Modern information sciences and systems engineering processes, practices, principles, procedures, and indeed the profession, teach us how to parse and employ multiple logical views of the same real system and it is those capabilities being exploited here. Strategically at issue is that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. What we did during our original systems review was to abstract the entirety of status quo thinking modeling reality and label it in order to refer to it simplistically. Ultimately there came to be eight recognized Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) loosely enumerated M0, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and M7 (held in reserve). For reasons beyond the scope of this article it is not generally permissible to ‘tweak’ any declared EIM, it must be iterated and the reason for that rule are derived from ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards. Elegant Reasonism Rules lay down the procedures for enumeration and iteration of not just these eight but all subsequently developed EIMs, in keeping with the National Performance Excellence Program (NPEP). Investigators conforming to these rules will then be enabled and empowered to specifically reference targeted observations and insights resulting from any enumerated EIM or iteration relative to any Paradigm Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) known to any philosophy or science. Elegant Reasonism Rules also require out of the selected EIM plurality set employed by any given investigation that at least one must close to unification. The presumption is that in the fullness of time other EIMs will join these eight and allow enhanced insights not offered by these existing EIMs and in this manner the utility process, technological framework, and the epistemology all become stronger as a result.

LEEs Gate

The concept of LEEs Gate refers to the decision diamond center left on the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) below. Note that acknowledged commission of LEEs will find you looping in the bottom left corner of this process and it will keep reminding you of commission guilt until you acknowledge the logical nature of abstractions and that you are not working directly with reality but abstractions of it.

If you believe you are directly observing or working with reality you are likely stuck behind LEEs Gate and committing Langer Epistemology Errors.

Abstraction

Britannica defines abstraction as, the cognitive process of isolating, or “abstracting,” a common feature or relationship observed in a number of things, or the product of such a process. What is there not articulated is that abstractions trend towards insulating and isolating higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. That trend is implied in what is said there but it is not really explicit. Where this become of strategic importance is when many abstractions have and hold systemic pattern and relationships. Then that lowest core construct (e.g. abstraction) holds strategic implications exactly because they are systemic up through that entire abstraction stack. For example, how the term ‘space’ is defined. The term ‘energy’ is another example.

What Elegant Reasonism demands and requires is that 100% of abstractions across every EIM employed within a given investigation be quantified, codified, and documented either within our ISO 9001 Unification Tool, or any equivalent tool you may choose. These tools are relational, they are not flat files. Structured Query Language (SQL) technology will be required. Abstraction definitions and codifications must be unique within EIM enumeration iterations and SQL enforces that criteria. Investigation teams must all use the same tool in order to be on the same proverbial conversational page.

Systems Engineering Awareness

Systems Engineers traditionally work in anthropogenically created environments (e.g. made by humans). That is to say they work with systems of human creation rather than natural systems. However, the principles are the same. Ironically the more we learn about the unified Universe the more we realize that everything real is a system or system of systems (at least under The Emergence Model that’s true). Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality, and the implications and ramifications of committing such mistakes can be quite obfuscating relative to the path leading to the unified Universe because something can be logically correct yet remain instantiated quite differently in reality. Reality need only instantiate the logical view you have of it. That does not mean your logically correct view is the be all end all characterization of reality.

Walking The Talk

A few rhetorical questions, not for us but for you to reflect on.

Do you believe ‘mass’ is variant or invariant?
Do you think most (e.g. status quo) professional scientists and engineers think mass is variant or invariant?
Do you think Albert Einstein held mass as variant or invariant?
When Albert Einstein created Relativity in 1905, specifically what problem was he attempting to reconcile and why?
Are philosophy and science completely distinct and unrelated domains or is science a constituent domain of philosophy with special methods and experimental techniques?
Is spacetime real or logical?
Is Schrodinger’s Wave Function logical or real?
Exactly why are Newton’s Laws true? What instantiates Newton’s Laws?
Can you reconcile the Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox?
Why is time’s arrow always positive?
Why did the ‘Big Bang’ bang in the first place and how did it accomplish that specifically?
If the Big Bang made manifest spacetime, and obviously time is a constituent, how did anything move absent time in order to bang?
If the Big Bang manifests spacetime, then what are the galaxies expanding into?
Can you discern something vs nothing without implying any sort of container?
Can you distinguish spacetime from the luminiferous aether?
What was the goal and objective Susanne K Langer was articulating when she wrote about what became LEEs?
Can you conversationally distinguish the source of truth in dynamic dialog relative to and respective of the unified Universe?
Why did SOLREI produce merchandise for each EIM, and the superficial business answer is not the reason.

Perhaps more important that the above set of questions are the implications and ramifications of their respective answers. Rhetorically contemplate those for a moment. The answers to 100% of the above listed questions are within this website. You might begin by reviewing a few of the presentations or whitepapers. One last question:

Who holds more baloney, the EIM which can not close to unification or the one which does?

Logically Congruent EIMs That Will Never Close

Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) must, by definition, fully comply with the realm of c’s, one of which is the requirement of closure (to unification). Elegant Reasonism requires closure philosophically as a predicate priority consideration entering science. Does that mean you can not use an EIM if it does not close? No it does not mean that. It does mean that you must give it less statistical weight in the analytical phase than do EIMs that do. Unification has ultimate predominance, and is uniquely held litmus. EIMs that do not close, but are within the context they make manifest, presuming logical congruence of consequences, and agreement with experimental results, can be exceedingly useful when enabling essential mode shifting is enabled during the illumination phase. Part of the point here for investigators is not allowing yourself to become blnded by that logical congruence in the face of critical situational awareness that perhaps the EIM your personal belief system ardently adheres to if that EIM will never close to unification. You must be open minded enough to question why your beliefs are as strong as they are, and quote unquote “evidence” while necessary is insufficient grounds. The reason for that insufficiency has to do with simultaneous truths made manifest by a pluraity of EIM situations. The example discussed below ultimately points out that science can not distinguish between multiple theories whose consequences are the same and which all agree with experiment. Somthing more is needed. The question is how to leverage that incremental insight and through what process is it administered. Our answer to that question is: Elegant Reasonism. And the primary question needing to be asked is which theory closes to unification with the highest affinity?