Who Is The Snake Oil Salesman?

The point of this article is fodder to get people to think. The precipice is hindsight from the point of view having accomplished unification. Under this process, its framework, and epistemology; truth is a function of the unified Universe and if your way of thinking can not close to unification then it is statistically dealt with accordingly. Unification demands and requires credible reintegration of everything real. No single domain of discourse is going to reconcile that number of issues, and in fact unification demands them all. This is no trivial or trite point. It is perhaps unfair to use the term snake oil salesman to refer to those who honestly, (e.g. innocently), commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). We use it here to provoke recognition that perhaps one should walk in another’s shoes for a mile or so in order to gain perspective on the source of truth being conveyed or attempted. Part of the reason and rationale for this action is to motivate beyond stages of denial coping and dealing with the array of paradigm shifts all of this represents. In any event none of this should be taken too seriously, after all at one point a long time ago most used to think the Earth was flat too. Sadly some still do, but that doesn’t stop the rest of us from learning new perspectives.

Who has more baloney in their pockets the eloquent elaboratist who can not close their thoughts relative to and respective of the unified Universe or the individual who can connect those dots simply albeit in a different context from the norm? The simplest way to spot an SOS, (e.g. snake oil salesman), is to ask them to demonstrate how the premise of their assertion closes with the unified Universe. If they start off with highly elaborate dissertations that rationalize away the basic requirements and fundamentals then start looking for your skepticism hat. First ask them to demonstrate the use of a common real geometric basis for every real object in every frame of reference, and if they can not do that then ask them to explain why that is the case. Then ask them why they can not reconcile that failure. The more elaborate the discussions become, expect simplicity and demand elegance.

The situation we find ourselves in, as a civilization, must contend with the incredible past successes of the greatest models of reality in human history. Those highly successful models and approaches however do not close to unification. The question is why that is so, and what we do about that. Many suggest we continue throwing billions of euros or dollars into research in order to “push the envelope” further. Populist stories emerge across the entertainment landscape and they have employed consultants from highly prestigious pedigreed flocks. Not a single one however can answer those same questions, nor to they understand their failings at reconciliation of the problem.

Part of the answer to the above question is “the other party not part of your worldview”. Is that conceit? Arrogance, perhaps? Would that constitute narcissism? In the study of threshold position relative to social structures since the time before history was chronicled there have been major thresholds through which social consciousness passed. Early campfire congregations established locus and focus of those individuals. Such centralized focus has been handed down over succeeding generations, but with ever so slowly broadening of horizons of awareness and contemplation of that yet to come. Across that awareness gradient the knowledge density required steadily increased. Those flexible and adaptable persisted. Some did so by more directly managing flocks of sheeples. Others embracing freedom and liberty celebrated innovation that arose from such diversity. Only in recent decades have various domains of discourse matured enough to identify past contemplative omissions.

How In Hell Did We Get Here?

The short answer to this question is that we all (e.g. all humans manifesting civilization) egregiously committed something we call Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Simplistically stated LEEs are what happens when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. Commission of LEEs is epistemologically fatal. They constitute a highly slippery slope straight into a logic trap we call LEEs Empiricism Trap. The philosophical branch of epistemology employed historically and traditionally by all of science is Empiricism and it only exacerbates commission of LEEs. To be clear Elegant Reasonism epistemologically is a superset epistemology in as much as it integrates all other epistemologies, statistically weighting them relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Our User Library has information on various epistemologies for your reference. For now, just know that Empiricism is absolutely necessary, but it is insufficient to gain the precipice of unification. We need only point out that Empiricism failed to produce unification empirically at anytime in history to make our simple case. Where Empiricism generally begins to break down in the presence of multiple theories whose consequences are all the same and all agree with experimentation (e.g. in the presence of simultaneous truths).

Part of the reason why Empiricism fails in that regard is might arguably be found in the arrogance resulting from science having forgotten its fundamental roots and origins. Many modern scientists do not know where to turn when such situations occur. Many begin asking which theory “looks more natural”, or “which best fits with the rest of what is known”. Ordinarily these would be good questions, unless the particular flock of which given investigators are a member can not fathom unification. What happens in that case is the group continues to look for their penny in the corner of a round room. Ultimately they give up, never fathoming their failures. When something unexpected happens which provides direct clues to the nature of the situation, status quo thinkers immediately move to quash the research as flawed or ‘replete with glitches’. Case in point example is this team testing ‘spooky action at a distance’ using Bell Inequality experiments.

This team operating Switzerland found that the speed of entanglement exceeded the speed of light in some cases by 54 times and that was viewed not as a maximum. Everyone pretty much threw up their hands and said that there must be a glitch because everyone just knows that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, (because Einstein said so), and that limit has been confirmed and reconfirmed (empirically) hundreds if not thousands (or more) times by any number of interferometer experiments, most notably the Michelson–Morley interferometer experiment. Employing Occam’s Razor let’s ask a rhetorical question. Which is more simple the presumption that an externally imposed dimensional nature of matter limits empirically observed phenomena or that the system producing the phenomena simply produces phenomena at that velocity due to its architecture? That was the essential problem Einstein was seeking to reconcile in his 1905 paper. Einstein‘s said in his book that taking these issues dimensionally ‘solved certain problems’ and he was then and remains now correct in that assertion. Strategically though it is important to remember that Einstein was not attempting to accomplish unification. He was working on the reasons why the speed of light was always measured to be the same, and we know how he rationalized that, or at least many folks do. Certainly Dr. Lev B Okun did. The jaw dropping insight, in context of modern information sciences context, comes when we realize that what Albert Einstein created with his model is absolutely 100% logically correct, because in that recognition lay the strategic clue needed to attain the precipice capable of both perceiving and engaging the unified Universe. The key nails in the coffin of status quo thinkers are Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Contemplate Your Perception of Reality?

Do you believe science describes actual reality or abstractions of it? The question is, of course, rhetorical. Poke around here long enough and you will discover, ultimately, that we have been working with our abstractions of reality. Said another way reality instantiates the abstractions we have of it, but that by no means it can’t also instantiate a different set of abstractions. It is for that reason that multiple theories can manifest the same consequences and agree with experiment to produce simultaneous truths. Otherwise only a single theory would be possible and that is patently a false assumption. What happens across science and civilization if one erroneously believes those abstractions are actual reality? For one thing, concepts and perceptions are never recognized because elements to recognize them for what they are were never pickedup. Concepts are left on the table. Questions are never asked because no one was looking in that direction.

Elegant Reasonism recognizes Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and has designed the process and framework specifically to minimize commission of such errors. Evidence chains are epistemologically anchored with the unified Universe. Epistemologies that do not close to unification are statistically weighted relative to and respective of that reality, and that includes scientific empiricism. It is for these and other reasons that unification is here held as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there.

Elegant Reasonism Illuminates The Path Forward

The cogent description for M5 of The Emergence Model sets up the ability and capability to characterize every thing real across the entire entanglement gradient. The intrinsic nature of its core constructs enable manifestation of common real geometric basis points capable of instantiating all mathematics (especially including geometry). Don’t take our word for it. Mode shift your own experiment or investigation. Everything in our User Library is in the public domain (or was when we built it), consequently you are free to independently verify any document you find there. That collected works is gathered for your convenience but if you want to go through all that effort you could reconstruct it just as you find it here. It’s there if you would like to use it. Our original system review notes are available from this website. If you bring up the URL for those notes and then include for example: “?fb3d-page=427” to review page 427 of the original systems review notes to see a list of standard model clues that among other factors led to the development of The Emergence Model.

Employing a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) at least one of which must close to unification in any given investigation brings a level of focus, resolution, precision, and accuracy in a holistic philosophical sense that has never been available.
Enumerating baseline EIMs and iterating them rather than allowing internal tweaking assures illumination of systemic affect and effects.
Avoiding Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) consistent with Elegant Reasonism Rules and the realm of the c’s facilitates effective navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF).
The utility process employing its technological framework fundamentally enables effective mode shifting of information we think we currently know into alignment with the unified Universe.

It has been said that half of solving problems is knowing that it can be solved. These factors explain the utility process and its technological framework epistemologically supporting truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority entering science and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) closing to unification: The Emergence Model. There are a plethora of concepts, constructs, phenomena and behaviors that, when properly and effectively mode shifted, completely reconcile every issue we tested. Significantly, many of those queries are documented in our original systems review. So much so that we invite you to test anything you wish in your own investigation. We are confident you will come to the same conclusion we did and for the same reasons. Our information is here for your use as basis and reference. The only thing inhibiting your use is your own willingness to engage something refreshingly new.

A Note On EIMs That Close

Elegant Reasonism Rules and the realm of the c’s only state that out of the plurality set of EIMs used in any given investigation that at least one close to unification in a fully compliant manner. There is no specific requirement that investigators must use The Emergence Model, it just so happens that today (circa 2023) that it is the only EIM which does close. In the advent someone else develops another fully compliant EIM that closes presumably it will be incrementally recognized and approved for the existing set and enumerated somewhere beyond M7. Part of the point in bringing this up is that EIMs establish fundamental interpretative context. The implication here is that if we list insights here made manifest by The Emergence Model there is no guarantee that a net new EIM won’t manifest reality in slightly different manner as a function of its constructs. Considerable analysis will be needed to develop a net new EIM. We spent from 2004 through 2019 on what you see on this website. Engaging in such an endeavor should not be undertaken lightly.

Consequently any insight we might proffer would potentially be assimilated by the innocent completely out of context where it would be meaningless. Insights must be delivered in context of the EIM manifesting the interpretative criteria. The ideal scenario is for all parties to be completely conversant with the process, framework, a variety of epistemologies (including Elegant Reasonism as an epistemology), and all pertinent factors influencing cognizance of not just the insight but of its derivation and mode shifted value (e.g. its mode shifted axiology).

Hard Points

Hard points can be areas historically glossed over or rationalized away, but are important to recognize and understand. Geometric basis points for all real objects is one example. If you believe that such concepts are already employed then demonstrate the geometric basis of spacetime employing a single real common point for every real object in every reference frame. What you will find if you pick up such a challenge is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that hard cold fact precludes employing a common real geometric basis point. The vital take away there is not recognition it is not real, but recognition of the logical truth being revealed. Revealed in an information sciences context. As investigators explore these issues they will find that the inability to couple all fundamental forces within a given reference frame were thwarted for essentially the same reasons. Once you understand these deliberations any critical review of the cogent description of M5 will demonstrate the manner of closure that EIM affords and offers. The more you investigate the more your understanding will draw you in here.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights.