Physical Sciences Are About Abstraction Instantiation

While that title is true, it does not imply that there is only one manner in which to accomplish that task. The real question is discerning instantiation relative to multiple abstractions to understand simultaneous truths while avoiding commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). What is not at all obvious is the need for Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). Strategic recognition lay with cognition of systemic implications and ramifications resulting from the use of abstractions in the first place and that requires modern information sciences to understand. What professional scientists actually study is how reality instantiates those abstractions. The questions are more about the relationships between those abstractions and patterns, but the single issue one must never forget is that all of that effort is funneled through the use of abstractions. Abstractions have the tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details. Mistaking an abstraction for actual reality is something here called Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), originally philosophically described by Susanne K Langer in 1948. It doesn’t matter which scientific discipline, they all have the same Achilles heel sort of problem. That backs us up to the epistemology philosophically employed by science. Empiricism for the last several hundred years has successfully ruled that particular domain of discourse and all its constituent detail sets.

The traditional and historical approach has been, in this order, perception, cognition, and then action. The challenge of that approach is exacerbated by Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) if your perceptions are influenced or corrupted in any way. The empirical assumption relative to those perceptions is that they are complete. The trick then is to assure the source integrity of truth used analyzing those perceptions, but then therein lay yet another issue which has its own set of challenges. Epistemologically sourcing truth whose common denominator threads through dependencies on human physiology makes the assumption and presumptions associated with that system (e.g. human physiology) can directly perceive all that is, and that presumption is a patently false assertion. Consequently the utility process design has three essential phases: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis which then drive through development of a treatise in alignment with the unified Universe where truth is held litmus by reality of the unified Universe rather than our limited perceptions.

Two millennia of mistaking that which we hold as reality rather than abstractions furnished by our physiology represents difficult and challenging paradigms to change. The logic within must be objectified externally and recognized for what it is. It is necessary but insufficient to measure cognitive velocity from memory to relationship or pattern if achieved pattern does not close to unification. Pick up any object around you. Build a list of as many unique characterizations for that object as possible. Which characterization out of that list does not employ abstractions? Which single list item represents actual real reality and can you anchor that characterization back into the unified Universe?

Source of Truth

You have empirical proof that a given experiment produces expected results. You therefore believe that you have described the nature as characterized by that experiment. We might, for example, use the Michelson–Morley Interferometer experiment exemplary in that regard. Let’s dig into this just a bit. If we asked for the source of truth out of these efforts you might report the measured velocity of light as a metric for success.  The factors needed in such a discussion are not illuminated until we fully understand the implications and ramifications of Niels Bohr‘s insight on abstractions are immersed in context of modern information sciences, especially Systems Engineering, as well as the implications and ramifications of Susanne K Langer‘s body of work (something here today we call Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). LEEs are committed when we mistake abstractions for actual reality, and they are epistemologically fatal. That they are something to be avoided is more than any understatement. Back to the fundamental question though, what is it such experiments are actually accomplishing? To answer that we must understand the relationship between Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) and reality. Avoiding LEEs we must respect the fine line between our models (and their constituent abstractions at all levels) and how our status quo thinking models reality. We must know that while reality may instantiate those logically correct points of view, that it might also instantiate other just as logically correct views. That is to say there may be simultaneous truths that must be reconciled. Such reconciliation has in the past been somewhat subjective. See Richard Feynman’s video below.

Part of the point here is that we must recognize the limits of scientific empiricism from a philosophical point of view. If conditions exist where science can not distinguish between theories because their consequences are all the same and they agree with experiment, then we must taxonomically back up out of science and investigate the philosophical underpinnings enabling our investigation. Central to that particular type of investigation is the degree to which our philosophical approach is in full compliance with what we call the realm of c’s, most notably therein the degree to which our thinking closes to unification (e.g. reflects the unified Universe). It is for these and many other reasons that ‘close to unification’ must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then it is too late. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe in exactly that set of circumstances and helps investigators to avoid LEEs.

Instantiation

Abstractions are assigned to specific EIMs, quantified, codified, and documented in that specific context. Any investigator is free to use our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or any other relational database product appropriately configured to assure Elegant Reasonism Rules. Contrary to popular belief, science does not have all the answers, nor will it ever and the reasons that is true have to do with simultaneous truths and distinctions between knowing and understanding. Don’t take our word on that, here is Richard P Feynman making exactly the same point in one of his lectures on this same subject in the 1950’s:

Physics, in the end, is the study of instantiation. Our original systems review recognizes, at the moment, eight Encapsulate Interpretative Models (EIMs): M0, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and M7. Systems engineering and information sciences principles suggest that every model has at least two views. The Emergence Model is therefore represented holistically by M5 and M6, neither individually and where the former is the logical view and the latter is the real view. Likewise that review sought to instantiate M1 and/or M2 through the real view expected to be M3. Quite to our surprise we found those EIMs instantiated by M6, and that M3 did not in fact exist. Consequently the only real EIMs is M6 and it lay seductively out of our current domain of quest and capabilities. For the time being our focus must be M5, not M6. Our area of study and teaching’s goals and objectives that our progeny effectively wield Elegant Reasonism to great affect. That they do so transformationally with great empathy and compassion.

Do EIM Core Constructs Close?

As an investigator, employing proper science, employ a common real geometric basis point for every construct considered real relative to and respective of your investigation? 99.9999% of all investigations circa 2022 would be required to answer no to that question. Albert Einstein once when asked if smart people make mistakes, answered something akin to “absolutely, but the difference is what happens after the mistake was made.” If we reconnect science as the branch of philosophy dealing with studying nature, more than simple remembrance of its ancient roots, we reestablish a path of essential inquiry in cases of simultaneous truths for the same physics.

Remember, that the problem Einstein was working to solve was not unification, it was the constancy of the speed of light as reported by interferometer experiments. The model Einstein created in order solve those questions is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed in order to gain the precipice of unification.

The Nature of Arguments

Arguments of any type require context, or there is no point to be made. The challenge is recognizing that what Elegant Reasonism changes is exactly that context. Consequently arguments, by their intrinsic nature, must be mode shifted to preserve contextual dynamics of the discussion or debate. Characterization of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) are reflected by each Encapsulate Interpretative Models (EIMs) employed across the plurality set chosen by a given investigative team where each reflects how that POI/N is made manifest by each EIM (noting that at least one EIM must close to unification).

Strategic Insight

Once we comprehend the full situation and desire to avoid commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), we then must be capable of discerning whether our assertions are logic artifacts resulting from logically correct EIMs which will never close to unification or if they truly are instantiations of reality in the unified Universe. For example, under M5, there is only one type of energy; though matter’s interaction characteristics are a function of relative and respective architectures of mass. This means there is no such thing there as dark energy. We would also point out and remind the reader that energy is an ability, not a discrete construct. Many individuals have a great deal of work to do in order to bring their thinking into alignment with capabilities made available through Elegant Reasonism.

Convergence

Science communities as a whole will ultimately converge on Elegant Reasonism, because nothing in status quo thinking modeling reality (e.g. M1 nor M2) will ever close to unification. We can make such a bold statement, despite all of the successes over the last hundred years for several reasons. First is recognition of the logical nature of those EIMs. We know it is only logically correct exactly because nothing real can transition its core constructs (e.g. spacetime-mass interface) to instantiate valid geometry. Consequently the geometry they promulgate is logical in its nature. Those constructs are therefore not real, logically correct though they are. No amount of effort, resources, capital, equipment, or innovation will ever change that. The issue is philosophical not scientific. Strategically at issue is that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. The simple fact is that the model created by Albert Einstein beginning in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification.

Recently many scientists are pushing recognition that the universe is twice as old as we thought it was. Our original systems review suggests it is a great deal older than even that age. See all the various mode shifted discussions here including those on the age of the unified Universe. While we could list all the predictions derived from The Emergence Model, the effort is essentially moot and wholly unsurprising exactly because that EIM closes to unification. So many “Ah Ha!” moments have already been demonstrated during our original systems review that our excitement comes when others experience such palpable and tacit moments themselves. Some ask if there might be incremental EIMs that do a better job, and our reply is that the utility process will only be stronger and more powerful than it already is in that eventuality. We’ve done our part. Its time for the next generations to extend and build upon all of this. Safe journey and all the best.

Central New Question

The new question can be distilled into the single word: Instantiation. Looking back, from a decidedly hindsight point of view, and recognizing that humanity has been working with abstractions of reality rather than the actual reality of the unified Universe, there are a great many issues illuminated to illustration. Furthermore we realize the implications of understanding how phenomena and behaviors instantiate what we witness in nature with increased clarity (and a great deal more common sense). Those environments and circumstances are rendered simple to the point of elegance (hence the names used). When we realize the implications and ramifications of status quo thinking modeling reality we are liberated beyond measure and empowered to seek alternatives that are also simultaneously true but within a different EIM. Systems engineering finds new purchase here in these environs and information sciences are immersed in intrinsic nature. The realm of c’s become commonplace litmus in such truth. Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology which 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 its too late) and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulate Interpretative Model (EIM) to close to unification: The Emergence Model. Investigators revel in enabling mode shifting and take great delight in watching the answer sets to standard root cause analysis change EIM to EIM. Answers to what you previously had believed completed why questions turn out to be characterizations of what transpires, not why it transpires nor how the action is instantiated.

The material and concepts which perhaps you seek are literally at your fingertips, you need only engage them as fodder within your own paradigms to learn their secrets, and there are many.

In this hindsight realm when we look at images like that at the header of this page we realize it is filled with imagery illustrating context of what relative to and respective of particular EIMs instantiating those various circumstances. When you realize that, you gain cognitive critical situational awareness of the elements necessary to instantiate those particular scenarios are missing from the image. What is missing from that image is just as important to global enterprise as it is scientific investigators. If your business processes do not engage those missing elements then you have no clue how to instantiate value for your customer base relative to and respective of the unified Universe. And that’s a problem. One which if you do not correct, will kill your enterprise.

Pandora’s Box Is Open

Batten down the hatches and secure the ship, it gets stormy from here. The only defense global enterprise has is wielding Elegant Reasonism to greater affect and effect than your competition. The apathetic laggards will be relegated to history’s dust heap. We have no time for them. Elegant Reasonism enables and empowers entrepreneurial innovation like no other in the history of civilization. Those understanding the implications and ramifications articulated within the pages of the above chart set will find previously unknown traction. In such scenarios predators often become prey. Intrepidity will favor the bold and  the insights that flow will render clarity in the marketplace of its own accord. Go back through history and list the top enterprises in any industry in decade intervals and consider why those lists change decade to decade. The answer is both the innovator’s dilemma and a failure to recognize the source of inspiration. Those who are more concerned about flocking credentials will miss the orthogonal insight. Those who do not comprehend the utility process employing its technological framework or how they epistemologically support truth as a function of the unified Universe will never comprehend insights so developed. The consequences for global enterprise are clear.  The simplex question is are you waiting for the bus or the bandwagon.

Does the unified Universe resonate to the melody your investigative results manifest, or are those sounds discordant?

Why is what you think you know now true?

If your answer to this question is Empiricism then perhaps you need to look deeper into how abstractions are made manifest by human physiology. Our physiology, which we use for all interpretation, creates abstractions so automatically and in such a familial manner as to distract us from their instantiating mechanisms. The question of cognitive velocity is not a measure from memory circuit or synapse to just any pattern or relationship but to those particular patterns consistent with the unified Universe. There is in this insight some astoundingly, perhaps ironic, good news needing factoring into these contemplatives and it is neuroplasticity. Great strides have been made in this field over the last several decades. The point here deals with those processes when we make decidedly intentional curricula whose goal and objective are consistent with the unified Universe. Such students will literally think in terms of the unified Universe. Such students will be powerful individuals whose conversational thinking will be critically situationally aware relative to and respective of the unified Universe. What they intrinsically perceive will be vastly different than historical perceptions.

Take any abstraction at human scales representing any object. Abstractions in general have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details, again generally speaking. So, let’s take those lower ordered details of that object you selected. Of those details organize those abstractions and then let’s again look at the abstractions making those manifest, and let us recursively continue this journey of abstraction until we reach the core constructs of the EIM manifesting that entire stack of abstractions. Keep doing that until the abstractions you find have details that can no longer provide supporting detail. When you get to that point you have the essential abstractions for that particular EIM‘s worldview. Everything made manifest within the context of that EIM is derived from that set of core constituent constructs, realized by reversing the process you just went through. Going down that stack toward those core constructs is a convergence vector along the entanglement gradient. That reversed process away from those core constructs back toward that object originally selected is (here on this website) the emergence vector. The point is that those core constructs are a different type of abstraction from all the others listed exactly because their lower level details can no longer be parsed. They must be handled with special attention, if for no other reason than their systemic affects ripple throughout everything real. At this juncture we must remind ourselves that even at this core construct level, we are still dealing with abstractions of reality and not reality itself. Reality instantiates those abstractions, not the other way around. Now that you have conducted your ‘abstraction stack review’ do the same thing, but for a different EIM. When you are done with that, complete the task for each of the EIMs in your investigation, including the one that closes to unification; which circa 2023 is very likely the cogent description of M5 (as The Emergence Model is the only known EIM to close, and until another is developed the EIM of choice for that closure selection). Now compare your abstraction stacks in juxtaposition with one another relative to some set of Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) regarding your original object perhaps. Essentially what you have just done is complete the 2D Articulation Layer enabling mode shifting at a basic level. Subsequent analytics take place at subsequent layers of the framework. Those abstraction stacks? Here they are called Paradigm Stacks, but those two labels are essentially synonymous. Remember, EIMs establish fundamental interpretative context. There are natural boundaries between them which compartmentalizes all patterns and relationships within them, and from which there is no escape – except via the utility process and technological framework supporting the epistemology that is Elegant Reasonism.

The salient question on the table deals with the question set relative to and respective of the actual manner reality is instantiated, physics if you will. There are any number of reasons humanity as a civilization is not ready to deal with the nuances of M6 (the real side of The Emergence Model). Chief among those are the various issues involving measurement. Part of the overall strategy here is to surround instantiation in order to ferret out those underlying details, no matter how restful they may be.

Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification