Push ResetPush Reset

Expectations

Seahorse Looking at Wristwatch
Seahorse Situational Awarness

We are laying the literal Keys To The Kingdom at humanity’s fingertips for our progeny and their legacy, but one must comprehend what they are looking at when they see it. Many paradigm shifts follow, and some are not ready for this journey. Those stepping onto the path please step lightly. The tools and materials you need for the journey are here. If this is your first time here, the reasons why all this is necessary will unfold as you come to understand what is being presented. There likely is a need to review other articles or click more than a few links here to understand the terminology you are about to encounter.

WARNING: Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish and otherwise manifest fundamental interpretative context.

Bus or the band wagon?
Bus or the band wagon?

The very direct implication of this warning and caution likely means you should not to expect foundational context to be what you find familial. Expect context switching to take place. Herein we call that ‘mode shifting’ and it requires some mental gymnastics to get used to. Patterns and relationships change as a function of the EIM making them manifest. Insights must be mode shifted EIM to EIM through the process, framework and epistemology. To us none of this is new, and the information has been around long enough for us not to have to spoon feed everyone every time we write an article. If this is new to you, then you perhaps have some catch up work to do. What you will find in this site metaphorically is a ticket on the bus, not the bandwagon, if only because it closes to unification at fundamental levels. Likely what you’ve been taught, perhaps believe, does not. Elegant Reasonism enables pursuit of profound questions.

DO NOT EXPECT TRADITIONAL CONTEXT TO HOLD EIM to EIM

MODE SHIFTED INSIGHTS MUST BE PRESENTED IN COGNIZANT CONTEXT OF THE PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP THEM

To expect insights here to fit into historical and traditional context is irrational and exemplifies commission of Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs in action. LEEs occur when abstractions are mistaken for actual reality, and dire as they are in and of themselves, it is the implications and ramifications that pose the greatest risk and obfuscation of what’s really going on. What is required to move forward is:

If you believe:

  • Because you observe empirical results that you are looking directly at reality,
  • Objective truth depicts actual reality rather than reality simply instantiating what you believe (and you do not understand that distinction),
  • Scientists work directly with reality rather than abstractions of it,
  • If you believe you are directly describing actual reality… see the previous bullet (you are stuck to the left (behind) LEE’s Gate on the PDCF)
  • The multiverse is real,
  • Spacetime is real,
  • Time travel is possible,
  • Dark Energy is real and distinct from regular energy,
  • That the big bang manifested spacetime,
  • That rapid expansion of matter within our particle horizon took place in the early universe (e.g. inflationary theory) and then mysteriously slowed down,
  • That spacetime expansion/contraction can exceed the speed of light,
  • That the speed of light represents a hard barrier,
  • That parallel universes exist,
  • etc., etc, etc,….

To be clear at the outset, everyone who has ever lived has made this same mistake but an error it is never the less. You, like those who came before you, are highly likely committing Langer Epistemology Errors. LEEs occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. Essentially you are ensnared, tightly within a logic trap that we call: LEEs Empiricism Trap. Susanne K Langer, in 1948, noted that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal.

Rhetorical Hard Questions

The subtitle perhaps should be “holistically reconciled herein”.

  • Q: Can you employ a single common real geometric basis point for every construct considered real in every frame of reference? Ask any perceived expert if they can or can not and have them explain their answer such that it closes to unification in a fully compliant manner.
  • Q: Can you look into your own heart and mind and retain a clear honest conscience that the abstraction representation you represent is in alignment with the unified Universe? Nothing is left out, nor obfuscated in any way? Logical realms are delineated from real realms with clarity (e.g. both sides of that fine line are adequately represented)?
  • Q: Can you fully couple all forces influencing all real objects in the same frames as just discussed? Can your experts do that?
  • Q: If your answer was ‘No’ to the above two questions can you explain ‘why’?
  • Q: Ok, intellectually you understand logical views of real systems. You understand that those logical views manifest interpretative context. What exactly do you do in order to prove the distinctions between Principled Laws (made manifest by particular EIMs) and Laws of Nature (where reality instantiates not only your favorite EIM but several others as well)? You think you know something because your experiment has no other options, but does the fundamental interpretative basis of the EIM manifesting 100% of that basis close to unification as a predicate priority consideration entering science? No, we didn’t think so…. push your reset button, because the implication is you don’t know what you thought you knew (and I know that’s true if you can not close your basis with unification).

Interesting as these rhetorical questions are, the implications and ramifications of the answers provided are ultimately a function of the EIM manifesting context. If any participant in such a discussion does not comprehend the implications and ramifications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors then the discussion quickly becomes problematic.

What is the distinction between these two statements:

  1. We know this is true because we empirically observed experimental results
  2. We know this is true because the experimental results were mode shifted in full compliance with the unified Universe

Statement 2 is the more powerful statement. Remember Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology is a superset which integrates empiricism but statistically weights its evidence and data relative to and respective of the unified Universe. What is strategically at issue between the two statements is whether or not statement 1 closes to unification or not. Something can be logically correct yet remain different in reality and reality can instantiate more than one logically correct EIM. Just because statement 1 may be completely logically correct in every way, if it does not close to unification, then there is more work yet to be performed.

FAQs

Epistemological Truth

There exist a number of differing types of truth. Personal truth comes to individuals through their interpreted life experiences. Objective truth is typically positioned as that truth delivered by science. You will see this next sentence again here and often across this website: Elegant Reasonism is the 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, and which produced the first fully compliant (to standards including NPEP) Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) which closes to unification: The Emergence Model. The source of truth here, is the unified Universe. To be candid the unified Universe does not care what you believe, nor does its truth depend on whether or not you believe in it. Truth as a function of the unified Universe is what it is, and here it is always held unique, discrete, and litmus.

Elegant Reasonism sources truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

It has been said that objective truth (of science) is a great deal more rigorous than is personal truth of experience. Likely motivated by the subjective nature of general interpretation. Rhetorically we ask you to ponder the implications of these issues in context of individuals committing Langer Epistemology Errors that ardently believe they are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. They will venomously attack any other truth using empirical evidence as their fodder. What these poor souls fail to realize are the implications and ramifications of multiple simultaneously logically correct sets of abstractions relative to the detail sets underneath them. Remember, what Albert Einstein created beginning about 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, does not close to unification, and too holds the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of the unified Universe exactly because it does not close to unification and nothing in science will show you that answer. Richard Feynman makes exactly this point but he was on a different subject than that being discussed here. He was so close to the answer it hurts.

Simultaneous Logically Correct Truths

The degree to which an individual ardently defends abstractions over actual reality will find themselves never comprehending implications and ramifications of a different set of abstractions that are also simultaneously logically correct and agree with experiment. Don’t take our word for it see the Richard Feynman video below in a 1950’s lecture on Knowing vs Understanding. Do you believe you have a good handle on all of this? Rhetorically then is ‘energy’ a real entity in an of itself or is it an ability of a real system that instantiates your abstraction of it? Not so easy a question to answer. Also rhetorically:

  • If you have two theories whose consequences are all the same and both of which agree with experiment, nature aside momentarily, what does that say about Empiricism epistemologically? Where is the source of truth you seek rooted? To a set of abstractions or to the unified Universe? We might point out that if you claim the unified Universe you must be able to demonstrate the unified Universe or your claim is false. We argue that the cogent description of M5 intuitively and obviously does close to unification. The implications here require comprehension of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) and status quo thinking modeling reality.
  • Why should a velocity of the photon construct affect so many equations (e.g. patterns and relationships)?
  • If ‘energy’ is a real construct rather than a logical one why are there so many equations where it is only implied and not directly managed?
  • If spacetime is a real construct then the previous question holds here too, why is it implied rather than dealt with directly in basic equations governing those realms?
  • Where is the equation which isolates spacetime to its common real geometric basis point?
  • What, exactly, fully couples the common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference to all forces acting upon those same objects?

If you still believe the above list is real then you have a great deal of work to do or you will never reach the precipice of the unified Universe. The more you learn here the more you will see that we reconciled 100% of the above issues. The initial phase of what we had to accomplish took more than 15 years. We continue to build on all that work. First and foremost please know that:

  • What Albert Einstein created beginning in 1905 with his publication on relativity is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification.
  • That there is a distinction between true and real; knowing which is which is vitally important. Something can be true but not real. What is confusing are the abstractions we employ for what by all accounts are real objects, but the question is which EIM instantiates the details underneath those abstractions and whether or not that EIM closes to unification or not. What is real may instantiate more than one truth. The question then becomes which real truth closes to unification and if yours does not, then you are in a bit of a pickle.

Pause, Full Stop

Humans in general tend to work on problems right under their noses. The problem in 1905 was a general failure of imagination regarding why why interferometer experiments were not detecting what everyone expected to find, notably the luminiferous aether. Do not misunderstand the intent right here. What Albert Einstein created beginning in that year is absolutely 100% logically correct and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice capable of both perceiving and engaging the unified Universe, but it likely is not in the manner traditionally articulated. When we look objectively at the circumstances and environmentals associated with what Einstein did and how he did it, we are presented with almost the same set of factors that forced McGowen down his rabbit hole.

  • Predominant thinking could not solve the problem
  • No one seemed interested in asking hard questions that potentially disintermediated status quo thinking modeling reality.
  • Speaking from 1st hand experience, when normal information channel sources are exhausted, one is faced with a decision: Abandon the question – or – answer it yourself.
  • Each solution represented a radical contemporary departure at exceedingly fundamental levels of interpretation.

Our original systems review ultimately demonstrated ‘why’ unification was not achieved, but the question then became ‘would it ever?’, and that is a much more difficult question to answer because the next shoe to fall would again be ‘why not?’. Simplistically, the answer is unification was not the problem Einstein sought to solve. It is not likely he understood, because information theory was not developed in his time but much later, that what he was working to create constituted a logical representation reflecting the science of physics which he perceived as reality (e.g. he, like us all, committed LEEs). The hard question we ran into was first stating succinctly why what we had did not close to unification. The answer to that question was shown to be a result of the spacetime-mass interface precluding anything real from transitioning that interface without first conversion to energy precluded employment of any common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. That same set of factors also precluded fully coupling those real objects to all forces influencing all of those same objects and for essentially the same reasons. Again, unification was not the problem Einstein sought to solve. When I sat down circa 2005-6, working on my impact dynamics project the Aitken Basin problem came up. The question was why was our Moon still in one piece. Answering the problem to the satisfaction of ourselves and stakeholders required essentially early development of The Emergence Model (e.g. logically setting aside the status quo thinking set of parameters and then looking to see if a fundamental redefining of those constructs could be accomplished in a manner that would in fact close to unification). Our motivation was not unification, nor were we necessarily looking for it, but what we were looking for was an explanation that penetrated scales from the quantum realm to the cosmological scales. Impacts at the time had differing scenarios for contemplations. One area was Newtonian in nature, and others relativistic, while still others hybridized factors. All of which was highly confusing and did not interlock in a smooth fashion. Simplistically this is how we got where we did. One last point is that we were so not looking for unification that we had accomplished two years before we recognized what we had done, and we looked at those equations every day of those two years. They were right in front of us the whole time. So much for my real time situational awareness.

Not until we realized that when in science multiple theories have the same consequences the same, are all logically correct, and agree with experiment, that there is no internal mechanism to reconcile which theory is the correct theory per se. What most scientists then espouse is “a need to consider which theory looks more natural”. The problem is the subjective nature of that act. What we discovered as a function of that act, is that it represents a philosophical taxonomic reconsideration of original premises, which is exactly what we did. Only now we had the advantage of modern Systems Engineering principles, practices, processes, and indeed the profession itself. Having had 1st hand experience with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards, Six Sigma, from a career in business process reengineering at Fortune 50 level enterprise levels, all the tools and experiences were at our disposal and the stage was set to ask that next hardest question: would status quo thinking modeling reality ever accomplish unification current course and speed. The answer was a resounding ‘No’ and for all the reasons science had failed to accomplish unification before 1900. The answer essentially is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) obfuscated the path forward and we all became highly, and very tightly ensnared within LEEs Empiricism Trap. Today, we have modern information theory and all the correct tools to travel the path to the precipice of unification. All that is now needed is the individual will to make that journey.

Unification Requirements

  • Quantify the source of all fundamental constructs and ideas
  • All domains of discourse must be capable of fully compliant integration in order to manifest everything real
  • Relationships between fundamental EIM constructs must philosophically enable unification due to their intrinsic nature (e.g. you must be able to derive everything real as a function of that intrinsic nature)
  • Logical relationships must be instantiated by real relationships and interactions, behaviors, and phenomena
  • All investigators must be able to distinguish logical realms from real realms and vice-versa
  • Employ a common real geometric basis point for all real constructs in every frame of reference
  • Fully couple all real objects to all forces influencing them
  • Fully compliant treatise subjects must be fully compliant to standards, the realm of c’s, mathematically sound, and withstand analytical rigor and
  • Investigators must be brutally honest with themselves relative to and respective of the above points and everyone else. They must be open minded enough to penetrate familial preconceptions but not so that their brains fall out.

Most well intentioned people innocently believe they are doing the above because they have been educated by institutional thinking that does not force recognition of LEEs. Did your teacher or professor rationalize away the need for a common real geometric basis point due to the vastness involved, or perhaps the nature of the big bang placed the origin on the other side of the event well out of reach for most needs? The bucket of cold water finds those and other rationalizations hogwash.

Without using math here, do you know why status quo thinking modeling reality can not close to unification? Rhetorically we ask: do you think it ever will? Why or why not? Oh, you want billions more in research so you can hire or maintain employment for thousands and build highly elaborate machines and sometime far off in the future you think all that will ultimately discern unification? Hold on, here’s more ice for that water in the bucket poised over your head. Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy, and it is exactly that hard cold fact which precludes employment of a common real geometric basis point or fully coupling all reference frames. It does not matter how many or much resources you throw at the problem that sort of thinking will never, ever, close to unification exactly because its fundamental constructs and their relationships preclude it. So what’s the answer?

Enabling Mode Shifting

Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs from page 74 in her 1948 book Philosophy In A New Key

Many erroneously believe they can just tweak what it is we already know in order to push the proverbial ball forward. Let me explain why that won’t work. First, many factors in astrophysics are highly systemic through out the manifestation of all real constructs. Simply tweaking something does not begin to factor the ripple effect and affect up through all orders of complexities. Second, we are dealing with multiple theories many of which all have the same consequences and agreement with experiment. Empirical science can not discern such simultaneity of truth. The answer must be upstream philosophically and then objectively compared to nature. We must objectively consider all the reasons we source truth. Do you find truth just because another human can duplicate your experiment and its results, or do you find confirmation relative to and respective of the unified Universe? That latter point requires first that you accomplish unification, or at least understand how it was accomplished. The mission of this website is to help you with that last point, but the effort and burden to understand is on your shoulders. Thirdly, how you manage contextual changes matters, and it is imperative to do so under ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards or you are going to get lost or worse. We documented our original systems review and those notes are available right here, right now.

Langer New Knowledge
Langer New Knowledge

Elegant Reasonism is the 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, and which produced the first fully compliant (to standards including NPEP) Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) which closes to unification: The Emergence Model. Herein, the majority of discussions center up on the EIM M5 for reasons beyond the scope of this article. We, likely more than anyone else would like to flip a switch and run out and create all sorts of new devices and machines next week, but nature doesn’t work that way. Susanne K Langer points out that with new insights come whole new realms of questions, and this situation is a prime example. We are so used to just saying this or that force does this that few really get into the details instantiating those forces. Certainly, the aforementioned problems are not reconciled (presuming their EIM does not close to unification), and even if it does there is a question of architectural detail. Consequently, we continue to push for a computational system whose fundamental design point is an order of magnitude greater than Summit, and whose architecture is consistent with Elegant Reasonism. Those requirements demand a net new system be created to augment Summit, and it requires an AI system trained (presumably by us) so it can effectively wield Elegant Reasonism to our guidelines, expectations, and standards.

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

Niels Bohr points out that all real material particles are abstractions, their definitions, behaviors, and phenomena only presented in context of other systems. While abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details, we run into a very hard brick wall when we get down to the fundamental core constructs of a given EIM.  There are no further details below that threshold. Those details must (ultimately) manifest everything real or something is amiss. We can at this point hypothesize theoretical manifestation of that path, but we need more than that to solidify solid theory, common practice, and more to be sure, much less physical machines, instrumentality, etc. which can exploit those new found insights.

Once you can effectively and conversationally wield Elegant Reasonism, you will understand that spacetime is a logical construct within the EIMs that employ it. You will understand that the multiverse is a logic artifact derived from the inability of those EIMs to close to unification, and consequently is also logical in nature. You will comprehend that there is only one type of matter, one type of energy, why time’s arrow is always positive, and you will be able to characterize the matter inside our particle horizon bang to bang. You will understand that the speed of light is a function of the electron-photon system producing that velocity and not due to an external dimensional barrier. You will understand that cosmological velocities are indicated by Hubble’s original data. You will recognize the logical nature of the inflationary theory and how to dismantle it. And while the speed of entanglement and cosmological velocities are exceptionally higher than previously believed, you will be able to explain and otherwise reconcile the Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox. When you go outside anywhere and pick up a highly mineralized piece of quartz, you will be able to explain to students the affinity that rock has with supernova, and how it came to be in your hand. Geologists will revolutionize their thinking as they cease looking down so often and begin to look up for answers. These things and a great deal more are yet to ripple across science, nations, cultures, and civilization.

The New Realm Is The Unified Universe

Once you understand the logical nature of that first list above, those issues are more easily dealt with through their logical nature. If you can not come to grips with that because your emotional need is for them to be real, we might suggest a review of Susanne K Langer‘s work, or some review in Systems Engineering disciplines. In any event the cogent description of M5 closes to unification, in a casually obvious manner no less. Any MBP, or set of them, may act as a common real geometric basis of all reference frames. Forces are the work instantiated by the intrinsic action of architectural mass. Time is an action displacement index, and space therein is dimensionless nothing (and is consequently essentially irrelevant). Reading that, I’m sure there are several billion questions. One starting place might be our original systems review notes which are online and linked. Everything real across the entire entanglement gradient may be made manifest from M5, regardless of scale. That EIM is simple to the point of elegance. The process of shifting points of view of any given POI/N from one EIM to another and back again is a process we call mode shifting. Not until you realize that EIMs manifest fundamental interpretative context will you begin to understand why communications is as difficult as it is. One must understand the process used to develop insights before the insights themselves are illuminated to illustration.

Disservice To Humanity

How would you characterize a hypothetical individual who fully comprehends all of this yet continues to persuade the innocent into commission of Langer Epistemology Errors sending them forever into the lair of LEEs Epistemology Trap? What about bastions of institutionalized knowledge who organizationally consistently act in that manner? Extrapolate this same scenario to accreditation standards. Now what? These issues span spectrum of education. What are we doing about that? Hindsight as they say is 20/20. The Emergence Model completely explains why the arrow of time is always positive. The cogent description of M5 illuminates that the only time that really and truly exists is now (under context of that EIM). Causality is a function of an Event Frame (e.g. interactions within).

Rhetorically consider that you are an ardent defender of the Flat Earth Society. You are emotionally vested in the premise that as you look around in your daily life that the Earth is indeed flat. These people who claim we live on a ball are out of their minds. Then, quite by happenstance, you meet someone who quite articulately explains why the assumptions of a flat Earth are wrong, that a larger tapestry explaining reality exists and can be leveraged to travel to far away places all across our planet. This new explanation explains the night sky above every location and why we see there what we do. The rhetorical question here is that you are that flat Earth person and how long do you believe you would hold on to familial understanding before embracing the new knowledge?

Now carry that analysis into the current situation. Status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification. It never will. Humanity is through its exploits and efforts have been working to illuminate our abstractions of reality in an attempt to understand the nature of reality itself, but we were completely ignorant of the implications and ramifications of crossing that very fine line into commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Commission of LEEs means we believe that our abstractions are reality and, as Susanne K Langer pointed out in 1948, that is a mistake which is epistemologically fatal. If nothing else it blinds us to the set of real questions needing to be asked. It leads us astray by not realizing we are leaving critical and vital information on the proverbial table. It means we really do not understand what it is we think we understand. The comedian Ricky Gervais is correct when he points out that if all of science were completely wiped out that ultimately we would come right back to this highly inevitable point, because that is the nature of science. Where he perhaps is a bit off is how long that might take and whether or not it would those amounts of time all be the same every cycle. The question is how long do flat earther’s persist in their views? Before you answer that too quickly we point out that, as a matter of public record, a guy named Mike Hughes died in 2018, not too many years ago, by building a rocket to prove that the world was in fact flat because he did not believe the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Elegant Reasonism epistemologically seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. There are other epistemologies, empiricism being one of them. If people are not careful they will fall prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap. Everyone who has ever lived has at some point, done exactly that. Elegant Reasonism was designed to help minimize commission of LEEs and to prevent the associated sets of mistakes. It is but a beginning, and it will improve over time as we all embrace the essential elements it teaches. The question remains though: how do we characterize those ardent defenders of status quo positions? They do serve a useful purpose in that it forces us all to make sure we can explain why they believe what they do. Their inability to explain those who embrace Elegant Reasonism without falling prey to the same criteria used in the Mode Shifted Baloney Detection Kit.

Building Groups of Experts

The US National Performance Excellence Program (NPEP) requires us to declare our intention publicly, and we have done so. Baldrige criteria requires us to publish our original systems review notes, and we have done that. All these things are available right here, right now, free of charge. We have presentations that explain how we came to these conclusions, and those are available right here, right now. We don’t just make declarative statements, we back it up with standards based processes. Our user library, which is open to all registered users free of charge, contains much of the original research material from notable investigators throughout history. Anyone, anywhere on Earth, can build emails to their colleagues and back-link any of this material in support of mode shifting existing knowledge into alignment with the unified Universe, free of charge. We have shown how net new science published after we brought all this out, dovetails and mode shifts. We have boldly placed this material in the largest possible crucible. We are not catering to any particular group. Having said that, we are Americans and we value freedom and liberty for all the same reasons as our founding fathers did. Those who hollowly discuss open societies are more interested in economic control than your freedom, and there is a point here relative to what it is we did here. We do not believe that what we did could have been accomplished under tyranny nor communism. What we did could not have been mandated from on high, and we cite history as self-evident proof of that. It had to come from the entrepreneurial spirit nurtured in these environs. It took a small band of essentially old retired guys to band together asking some really hard questions, because we were all type-A personalities and well, we were bored and wanted to make a difference. Those who think they must immigrate to join us should talk to those in Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, etc., etc. There is an existing process other than leaving your home. We the people are the government here. Ours is a nation of volunteers not conscripts. Freedom and Liberty can be defended from right where you stand, but it is not an easy path. Nor has what we did been easy, and we had to do it alone. Everything you see here, we paid for out of our own pockets and at great cost both monetarily and personally, and it has taken from 2004 until this moment to get here. Not just this website but field expeditions, tools, equipment, and unexpected situations. We bore the burden of criticism because we know that in the end truth will prevail. We bore that burden exactly because we understood what it meant to and for civilization. Bastions of institutionalized thinking will ultimately implode because they must follow the path we laid out to the precipice of unification. Deniers will be defeated because they can’t answer the hard questions. We did. Those answers we had time and energy to pursue are all here. Did we answer every question? Oh hell no, but we fought and slugged our way to the insights here, and we show you how we did it, not to be proud, but as teachers to show you how to do it. Our goal and objective here is for you to learn how to think for yourself independently. Learn to mode shift status quo thinking and model reality consistent with the unified Universe. We know this is the path to the precipice of unification because we have looked hard for other paths to the same end. We couldn’t find any. Those who are firmly ensnared inside LEEs Empiricism Trap should be made aware that an exit has been found, and we place the keys to the kingdom in your hand, right here, right now. We understand that context has changed and not everyone is on the new model. It is only a matter of time before everyone understands what we did here. Deniers will never adopt any of this. They can stay in that train station. The rest of us are going to the stars.

We want you to be the expert wielding Elegant Reasonism. All we ask is that you do it transformationally with great empathy and compassion. If you are able to wield it commercially, send us some love to say thank you. We hope what you find here helps your journey.

Does This Mean We Have to Start Over?

No, is the short answer. Elegant Reasonism allows us to mode shift what it is we currently think we know into alignment with the unified Universe. We can build on that base and create net new insights. What we can report is that nothing looks the same from the precipice of the unified Universe as we have traditionally perceived it. Everything changes. Different questions are asked. New perceptions come with a great deal more affect and effect. Quite suddenly we can characterize what is inside our particle horizon bang to bang. No rapid expansion needed. There is ample time for everything to have developed in exactly the manner we find them with the JWST or HST. This isn’t to say that all the work is done, far from it. We are only just beginning and the proverbial waters are great!!  Come on in!!

What Does This Have To Do With Business?

In short, everything. Each EIM establishes fundamental interpretative context of how reality works at basic levels. Business processes depend on accurate definitions. If the definitions do not incorporate all that is, then something is left on the proverbial table and if the EIM your enterprise is employing does not close you have no way of knowing what that is. You may never know until your competition gets there first. Ironically, mode shifted insights constitute a net new asset. That means deep pockets who understand how to wield Elegant Reasonism more effectively than you implies they can waltz over and raid your portfolio at their whim and mercy. The only defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it to greater affect with greater effect than your adversary, whoever that may be.

 

Unification is about a great deal more than any single domain of discourse. It is, in fact, about all of them simultaneously. Ignore this at the will of your adversaries, and it matters not who those adversaries are. If you have a large asset portfolio of any type, economic, national, or otherwise it behooves you to heed these warnings. The rest of us may depend on your doing so.

Evidence

What constitutes evidence must now be mode shifted into fully compliant context of the unified Universe, or it is sheer fantasy, and that is a subject that will concern legislators and the judicial system for the foreseeable future. We have written about this in earlier articles and presentations. Yes, appropriate groups and agencies have been notified. What they did with those notices is their responsibility, not ours. Unfortunately there is no law mandating cognitive awareness. The precedent being that absence of such awareness is no excuse for violating the law. Unfortunately the reverse side of that same proverbial coin has yet to be recognized in precedent. We all have a great deal of work to do.

Resetting Science Fiction

This subject has already been presented here. The shift in plot device focus moves to relationships over technology due to greater understanding of logical vs real systems. Classic literature that survives mode shifting are those involving hibernation, and multi-generation vessels.  Stories like Forbidden Planet, Alien, and the like survive while Star Trek, Star Wars, and many others wither and die under such scrutiny. The former example only just scrapes by tolerant eyes, forgiving aging problems of terrestrial bound characters. In that example, Morbius would have grown old and died long before the spaceship arrived, that crew being in stasis. In any event, ardent defenders of science fiction will need to drop plot devices that no longer have basis in science and relegate such stories to fantasy realms. As it happens i am a big fan of many of the stories that have now been shown as such. They are good entertainment, but until they can demonstrate employment of a common real geometric basis point that survives transition of the spacetime-mass interface for all real objects in every frame of reference they must not be considered science, but fantasy because their plot devices exist primarily only within a logical rather than real realm (e.g. the EIM manifesting their plot device context does not close to unification). The new realm of literature offers a fertile ground for the imaginative among us to explore.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights!  Sic’em!!

 

 

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: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707