Reflections

Mirror, Mirror, …

Reflectively peering deep into the mirror’s image beyond the superficial to behold manifestation of contemplation is where we find abstractions abound. Are we touching reality or do we have abstracted gloves on? The answer it seems that they are not just gloves but fluffy mittens. As with anything new, learning to ask the right questions is always a challenge. Humanity gathers into flocks of one sort or another for mutual support of combined interests. The problem and challenge is what happens when we discover that the mittens of every group was woven with the same abstracted threads? Starting all over from scratch is not the answer because that does not guarantee the same abstractions won’t emerge from the newly spun fibers. Continuing the metaphor we note that if the loom does not change neither will the tapestry it produces. Something must change in order to change the result. It has been said that the very definition of insanity is performing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

The historic assumption all of the sciences have employed utterly ignores the implications and ramifications of commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in the full, modern, context of information sciences. We humans arrogantly assume that when we go outside and pick up a rock that it is tangible and constitutes empirical evidence. What we have historically ignored is proper definition of “it” in that sentence. We had presumed that we could toss that rock to someone else, thereby duplicating and repeating associated experiments on that material. The problem is that as we dig beyond that label we called “rock” we realize it has constituent abstractions called minerals, which in turn have constituent abstractions called elements, which in turn reveal yet more layers of abstractions. As we probe ever deeper into the abstraction stack, ultimately we (historically) expect for the abstractions to cease and reality be revealed. That latter presumption is patently false and it does not matter the degree of congruence to consequence or experiment one might have. However, congruence is the wrong question at this stage. A better question is congruence to what exactly. Ultimately the answer must be the relationships and patterns between our abstractions which collectively must be pulled together into a model representing what it is we believe best reflects reality.

Strategic at this juncture is recognition of the logical nature of the various relationships and patterns our abstractions manifest within or by any given model. Another common mistake is to beat back the desire to tweak a given model under the belief that we will instantly recognize 100% of all systemic changes. Our experience suggests some changes are subtle and far removed from low order origins of systemic gradients. Consequently under Elegant Reasonism Rules: 1) all models must be 100% quantified, and codified. We call that part of the process encapsulation. Once declared (e.g. encapsulated) nothing goes in or out of that enumerated iteration. The model may be iterated into a net new encapsulation but the original must not be changed. The comprehensive set of such models may then be juxtaposed for comparative analysis. They may also be used as lenses to improve resolution, precision, and accuracy of any particular such Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM).

Familial Attachment

Perhaps we humans must get to a point where both an intelligence quotient (IQ) and our emotional quotient (EQ) must be considered respective of and relative to each other. A few years before this writing a guy who had the wits and resources necessary built a rocket to prove his belief that the Earth was flat. This happened in the 21st Century, not the 14th. People find comfort in groups of familial surroundings. So do anchovies and sardines for bait balls for pelagics. Quail form coveys and others flock together. Perhaps all the reasons all groups form, to some degree, have the same reasons. Starting over from scratch is perhaps one of the scariest endeavors but there is light at the end of that particular rat hole. Elegant Reasonism provides us to opportunity to take what it is we all think we know and mode shift it into fully compliant context of the unified Universe. Depending on the degree of attachment to the old ways will determine the difficulty of that particular path to the precipice of unification.

Truth

In a court of law, empirical truth usually prevails, or at least that is the intent of the proceedings as defined in law. Empiricism is intrinsically tied to scales human physiology is attuned to deal and cope with, and very often falls prey to being ensnared by LEEs Empiricism Trap. That trap more often than not obfuscates the path to the precipice of unification by misleading investigators into believing that the abstractions they employ are the reality they seek. Abstractions surround and are instantiated by reality but they are not in and of themselves that. Abstractions are how we think about reality and, in science, we test the degree to which our status quo thinking models reality.

Epistemologically truth, more precisely, the source of truth is what distinguishes one epistemology from another. Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism sources truth as a function of the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism is here considered a superset epistemology exactly because it is capable of integrating all other epistemologies relative to and respective of the unified Universe as a source of truth. Logical domains made manifest by the neural networks within ourselves might be logically correct, and perhaps their logical correctness is even instantiated by reality, but that does not mean that actual reality might not also instantiate other logically correct perceptions of it. The question then becomes whether or not the EIM being employed to understand that instantiation close to unification. The situation then requires our ability to discern where the evidence chain anchor points are relative to and respective of the unified Universe, exactly because the EIM is just that, a model. Also because we must not commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) we must recognize that there is a fine line between the EIM we employ for any given investigation and the actual reality it seeks to understand. Because of these issues and many other factors it was necessary to design Elegant Reasonism such that its utility process and technological framework to be capable of such.

Integrity

Consider for a moment the truth instantiating integrity. Depending on the epistemology being employed by such an inquiry will likely establish epistemological metrics, because any other selection would pull the inquiry out of context of the circumstances being considered. It is for these and all other factors discussed broadly here that the source of truth sought by Elegant Reasonism be understood relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Therefore to argue with truth in that context is to argue with the unified Universe. Have fun with that. Some wish to ignore what all this represents believing it will melt away, but such truth will endure into eternity. Contextual integrity is therefore a function of epistemological truth.

The very direct implication of this positions all peer reviewed papers, conclusions, collections, evidence, results, experiments, data, etc. which do not close to unification as having solved only one part of the larger tapestry that reflects the unified Universe. Whatever material any investigation or institution has while likely necessary it is insufficient in and of itself to gain the precipice of the unified Universe. That material must now be mode shifted into alignment in order to be fully compliant such that team members may both perceive and engage the unified Universe from that point of view. They must now finish what they began, successful as what they may have already accomplished is, there remains more to do.

Mode Shifting The Baloney (e.g. bullshit) Detection Kit

The more elaborate an explanation is the less likely it is to be true, no matter how logically congruent it may be, and most especially if that congruence does not close with the unified Universe. Something a man named William of Ockham noted quite a long time ago. Today we call that insight Occam’s Razor which essentially states that simplest answer tends to be the most accurate.

What Does This All Mean?

It means civilization is on the precipice of joining a much larger community that comprehends unification. It means that we may realistically both perceive and engage the unified Universe in order to solidify our place in that community. It means that we are now able to discern the difference and distinction between logical, logically correct, and real systems. It means we know that everything real has two views one logical and one real. The real instantiates the logical, but we are not mature enough as a civilization to directly engage the real (yet). We can ‘sort of’ engage the real but not in a directly cognizant manner. The issue is one of measurement, uncertainty, and the intrinsic natures involved, not just of the real but those assumptions of the logical EIM systems used to investigate them. What helps us hone our scalpels and tools is knowledge and avoidance of Langer Epistemology Errors.

As you come to understand what it is we’ve done, and how to wield it yourself, you will also notice that while the rules require the utility process and technological framework require at least one EIM to close to unification. Today that requirement suggests use of The Emergence Model, only because it is the only EIM known to close. That in no way means that at some point in the future other EIMs won’t be developed that also logically close. If and when they do, the utility process and framework already established only becomes stronger and more powerful in that eventuality. Our only caution in all of this is that Elegant Reasonism be wielded transformationally with great empathy and compassion, because there are a great many not yet ready for its insights. People must come into this understanding on their own and of their own free will. Our experience is that it can not be mandated from on high. There are a great many paradigm shifts required in order to embrace all of this and that begins between the ears of those learners, not the messenger. For our part we continue to hone and improve our articulation of all this in the attempt to ease the student’s journey as best we can.

The Next Step

Part of knowing what to do next is understanding where you currently are and the circumstances you find yourself. The very first self-assessment is to ask if you can take what you have and place it directly, smoothly, without modification, into the context of the unified Universe. If you can not do that, then you have work to do, and that work begins with what it is you think you know or have. Part of that assessment is recognizing why what you have does not close to unification. The mental pattern you need to take is not about what you have being correct because in all probability it is logically correct. The challenge is understanding the implications and ramifications of what exactly that means. The first place to begin is understanding the utility process and technological framework it employs. The charts below are an introduction to those topics.

Immediate Implications

Immediate implications to and ramifications of all this, from a decidedly hindsight point of view, might arguably manifest an epicenter around what exactly constitutes evidence under these circumstances. Does previously considered evidence change? Our answer is that it depends on how that evidence mode shifts into alignment with the unified Universe. What we can say is that task generally lay ahead of us still. Our original systems review notes are online and available for any inspection via this website. There are no domains of discourse this does not affect. Every discipline of science is directly affected by what we now know. We now know that our laws and systems are tied to an epistemology, (e.g. empiricism), that creates conditions and circumstances which lead to a logic trap of epic proportions via something we call LEEs Empiricism Trap. We have worked for years to find an alternate escape from that trap but the only one we were able to perceive, and consequently develop, is: Elegant Reasonism.

The central question is whether or not your evidence chains are anchored by Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) contexts that either close or they do not, and in that latter case: a problem exists. That problem is what it takes to bring the associated Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) to closure via fully compliant, standards based, investigation consistent with what we call the realm of c’s.