Six Degrees of SeparationSix Degrees of Separation

Six Degrees of Generational Separation

Normally the six degrees of separation traditionally is 2 dimensional relationship within a defined population demographic. What if we consider that back through time relative to the development of essential concepts and constructs. Then we have some interesting connections and stories to articulate.


Philosophy is the study of all that is and that includes both the real and unreal. This latter point is vital because the former represents the various instantiations reality manifests and while that same reality can be said to also instantiate the unreal via imagination of humans or otherwise, (including AI), it is indirect rather than direct. Therefore reality must be represented by no less than two Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs), two ‘views’ if you will allow that characterization. Those investigators who concern themselves with such endeavors would be wise to consider how status quo thinking affects their modeling of reality. When our original systems review began our expectation was to find M3 instantiating M2 and/or M1. What we discovered was that M1, M2, M4, and M5 are all logical views instantiated by M6 and that M3 does not exist. To say we were stunned is the understatement of the millennia. Only The Emergence Model, which is the holistic integration represented by M5 and M6, close to unification in a fully compliant standards based manner consistent with the National Performance Excellence Program (NPEP) goals and objectives.


Axiology is the philosophical study of value derivation and herein sources that value as a function of the unified Universe. Money is the instantiation of intrinsic value, and herein the ultimate source and context of value is the unified Universe; every other form being derived from some constituent domain of discourse also containing constituent detail sets. Far down that food chain are the enterprise endeavors of business. To that end those versed in the discipline of marketing management will no doubt be interested in our presentation here entitled: In Unification’s Wake, Part 5: Business Impact.


Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and there is a subtle implication requiring a source of truth within that body of knowledge; herein that source is a function of the unified Universe. Details of other epistemologies may be found elsewhere, such as: constructivism, empiricism, rationalism, etc, etc, and each sources truth in a unique manner. Elegant Reasonism here is considered a superset epistemology which sources truth as a function of the unified Universe and considers other epistemologies statistically weighted relative to their ability to manifest the same end to end truth spanning all domains of discourse, system, or system of systems – simultaneously.


Ontology is the philosophical study of being. Some mistakenly construe that as a study of reality, but little could be further from the truth in that. Ontology is the study of our being which reality instantiates and there is a fine distinction there that should not be ignored, but respected. The alternative is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Reality is that instantiation of the unified Universe manifesting everything real, and that includes a great deal more than human physiology has the capability to sense. For example one can not see air, and there are no nerve endings inside the lungs with which to feel pressure. We can prove air’s existence experimentally and discern its constituent elements scientifically, that is empirically through spectrographic analysis. Here, ontology refers to the philosophical study of being in fully compliant context of the unified Universe.


Many have forgotten that science is the philosophical study of nature. Unpacking that lost perspective we find people so enamored with laboratories and instrumentality that they dismissively disregard the roots that grew that mighty oaken discipline within philosophy. Science employs unique techniques, processes, and principles, (none of which are lost here), but science begins to grind to a halt when multiple theories all have the same consequences and agree with experiment. Under such circumstances more is needed and it is under those circumstances we find ourselves. We then must hearken back to those long forgotten roots. Unification demands a credible means to characterize the reintegration of everything real. It means we must know where it all came from and where it is going. It means too that concepts like philosophy itself must be capable of the same reintegration and that includes all of its constituent domains of discourse including science. We must respect philosophy’s taxonomy.


Supervenience is the philosophical study of order and priority; where herein the unified Universe dictates the criteria deriving and otherwise manifesting all relevant metrics.

Six Sigma

Six Sigma is directly impacted by Elegant Reasonism in the following, highly profound manner: 1) what have been primary sigma calculations are now recognized as being within encapsulation boundaries of the EIMs manifesting fundamental context, and 2) a holistic sigma calculation is required encompassing the entire investigation which must close to unification (e.g. represent truth as a function of the unified Universe). Constituent sigma calculations may be performed in order to measure the effectiveness of enabling mode shifting within Translation Matrices. Having a high sigma calculation absent any consideration of the unified Universe ties out to an EIM which manifests fundamental context that does not close to unification and consequently does not take into account those factors (at all). To say such use of sigma values is deficient in these regards is a simplistic observation at best.


Does it matter if you have an appropriate sigma calculation only within an M1 defined system? Not really, if the only thing of value was also in that same context. The problem comes when you assert greater applicability to that calculation than the context warrants or supports. To claim, for example, the multiverse is real is erroneous exactly because such a claim can not be demonstrated employing a common real geometric basis point, nor can it couple all real constructs relative to all forces much less the constructs instantiating those forces. Such environs have great difficulty discerning the logical from the real.


20 Cognitive Biases
20 Cognitive Biases

Lewis Grizzard, a humorist centric columnist of times now gone, noted that for all the dogs on a sled team the scenery only changes for the lead dog. The point here lay in out any given philosophical truth is sourced, and we argue that the ultimate truth is the unified Universe. Call the unified Universe God if that helps you, because after you comprehend the integration of everything real there is nothing else beyond that construct. Unification is the integration of everything real. It doesn’t matter how far from the James Webb Telescope a location might be, the issues are the same and philosophically must be taken into account. That’s why we have this emotional need to call them ‘laws of the universe’. The problem and challenge are the details behind the meanings of those words. Communication design requires a common framework and herein that framework is provided by Elegant Reasonism.

Almost 120 years separate the present from turn of century at the 1900 threshold to today. Taking 20 years as a generation leaves us with six generations between then and now. Someone will likely study why it took us so long to recognize all of this. Look how long it took to recognize systems engineering as a discipline within information sciences, that professional organization forming only in 1990. Punch cards were originally developed to control weaving looms, but ultimately represented letters, words, and codes that could be fed into machines for subsequent manipulations electronically. All that led to computers whose operations are enabled by nanometer scaled transistors on silicon substrates and organized into vast cabinets of machines as well as devices we can hold in our hands. Computing as a Tool for Human Augmentation points out that automating something bad only makes bad things happen faster. We must consider what it is we are automating and why.

The classic interpretation of degrees of separation are people meeting people meeting people (six times). That is a notably 2 dimensional representation where the implication is (that were alive at a point they could have met). I have pondered often here what would the world would look like if Einstein, Bohr, Langer, and Okun could have spent time together. There would have, perhaps arguably, been others at such an occasion as well. We like to think the world would have already embraced what we now call: Elegant Reasonism.

We must now consider influence affinity within those spheres of connections and me might apply six sigma to those calculations for contemplation purposes.


Many biases influence our cognition of reality if for no other reason than we are after all human. When Carl Sagan produced his epic series Cosmos there was one scene had him in the New York Public Library where he showed the number of books he could possibly read in his lifetime as compared to all the possible books in that same library which he had to choose from. His point then, and our point now, is knowing which book to pick. More to the point here, is knowing which context (e.g. EIM) to pick. That is to say where you chose to source truth.

Being aware of these various biases helps in making that choice. There is no greater opportunity than understanding the unified Universe. That tapestry is a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse, in fact it includes every philosophical domain of discourse.

Science Requires Facing Reality

The reality is that status quo thinking, (e.g. M1), modeling reality does not close to unification, but that is not the point. The point here is that when we look dispassionately at the reasons it does not close we are faced with the harsh reality that philosophically it will never close, despite its logical correctness. Look as closely as you wish at those patterns and relationships between core constructs of that type of thinking. You will find that the equations governing those constructs result in a situation where nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. That’s why any set of real objects in any frame of reference can not employ a common real geometric basis point, nor will they ever. Therefore the definitions of its core constructs philosophically preclude accomplishing unification. When we realize that what Einstein created in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, we also recognize too that therein lay the strategic clue needed to accomplish unification. When we encapsulate what Einstein envisioned (e.g. M2) and do the same for status quo thinking (e.g. M1) we realize that we may too encapsulate any number of logically correct EIMs so long as they are fully compliant with the rules, standards, and what we call the realm of c’s.

Science can not determine which of two theories which are both shown to have the same consequences and be in agreement with experiment is the correct theory of the two, but don’t take our word for it. Here is Richard P Feynman saying exactly the same thing in a 1950’s lecture:


Worldviews & Reconciling Reality

Consider the implications of a worldview that believes spacetime is a real rather than a logical construct. Adherents believe the multiverse represents reality, despite not being able to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in their reference frames. They run experiment after experiment as proof of the detail set confirming their belief system, never considering alternative explanations for every single event they documented. When asked about the unified Universe they obfuscate, dance, and tell very elaborate stories based on their familial domains of discourse and they perform with an intensity and attitude intended to intimidate all potential contenders. After espousing facts from contextual congruence derived from their favorite EIM they confidently dust off their hands, as if to say ‘that is that and there are no other explanations, so there’. If you start poking at such worldviews anger is often evoked and ardent defenders exhale greatly in extreme frustration at ‘your ignorance’, as their continued barriers prevent them from hearing as they listen and certainly do not see as they look. Such are common attributes of those ensnared within the constricting grasp of LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Such individuals are caught flat footed at the base of the unified Universe’s precipice, exactly because from that vantage point a common real geometric point can be, and is routinely, employed. All real objects in every reference frame are fully coupled relative to and respective of all fundamental forces. There on that precipice conversationally skilled individuals recognize the logical nature of spacetime and know that the multiverse is a dead construct. They can describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang, as well as the implications of the particle horizon. Like a beacon illuminating dangerous shoals Elegant Reasonism stands poised to mode shift what it is you think you know into alignment with the unified Universe. All you need do is engage. We may show you the portal, but you must enter it and then do the work necessary to wield what you find there.

We must return to our roots under such circumstances and ask a great many very hard questions, but most of all we should be skeptical of any EIM that does not philosophically close to unification. The value Elegant Reasonism brings to the table is that it allows us to mode shift what it is we think we know into alignment with the unified Universe. We do not have to start all over again. We can continue right from where we are and build on that far out into the future!

We look forward to your mode shifted insights.

Shop Now



By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: