On Fact

– Facts are a function of a worldview’s source of truth, as well as ‘context’ and even then of the EIM manifesting that context. Nature cares little about your personal epistemology. Nature is unified, whether or not your worldview is. What happens when we realize the facts on which we all depend are recognized as collections of abstractions within a logically correct congruence set and that there exists more than one such set? There are a great many issues to unpack from that sentence. Humanity is at such a confluence of competing interpretations and we must ask the correct questions to discern the proper path to take. If we take the wrong path our conclusions will be based on erroneous assertions and results will be significantly misinterpreted. Commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), those epistemological errors that occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality, significantly obfuscate implications and ramifications resulting from those various interpretations. Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) manifest intrinsic inherent interpretative context. It is vital, then that EIMs be quantified, and codified, in order that their various interpretations might be tracked from source to those implications and ramifications. More importantly is that the capability to mode shift those interpretations between EIMs for any given Paradigm Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) is vital to any understanding of how actual reality is instantiating the abstractions being employed. The very real situation arising out of all this is that we (humanity) must be critically situationally aware of which EIM is responsible for any given set of “facts” or “evidence“. We must then know, for certain, whether or not that particular EIM has any philosophical capability of full compliance with the realm of c’s, most especially the factor: ‘close’, which mean close with the unified Universe, exactly because if your EIM does not then there are aspects of reality being proverbially ‘left on the table’.

What we must then do within any given investigation or assertion is to inventory how the relative set of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature are made manifest by each EIM in turn. We must then understand how those relationships and patterns shift and change EIM to EIM, because there are a great many particular abstractions which are highly systemic along the gradient of most fundamental construct to most complex construct. When we put an intense scrutiny on known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns for any such quest or investigation we find that the answers to standard root cause analysis questions (what, when, where, why, and how) change EIM to EIM. Consequently what constitutes facts in one EIM are potentially not facts in another. Exacerbating all of this is that there also exist multiple different epistemologies and they distinguish themselves from one another in how they source truth. Scientific empiricism, for example, employs an ability to duplcate and repeat results so they may be independently assessed by others. What is not stated in that effort is that everyone who might perform such tests all share the same physiology. If the EIM that same physiology is employed then they will duplicate the same results. Further exacerbating all of these various factors is the population of investigators who might be committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). If 100% of the investigators are all ardent defenders of the EIM M1, for example, to the degree they deny results from any other EIM, and those same folks are also committing LEEs in the same or consistent manner, then that whole set of investigators will never comprehend or fathom results from any other EIM (nor of the people whose vision is not limited to M1).

It is here that the realm of c’s criteria become areas of scrutiny and fodder for investigators. Most especially that term ‘close’. If the basis of a given assertion or position can not demonstrate closure relative to and respective of the unified Universe, then we must set those assertions with skepticism flags. If the assertions can be effectively mode shifted consistent with the unified Universe then we might look to improve the degree to which they align in order to refine our understanding of how reality is instantiating all of the various EIMs.

Unpacking That First Sentence

It is important that the reader understand there is not enough real estate in this article to do justice to what needs doing, but we will try to hit the highlights.

Taxonomic Orders

Abstractions exist within orders of complexity beginning with the smallest possible construct ranging up to the largest. Various names for all of that may differ EIM to EIM because they are made manifest as a function of the constructs created by particular EIMs. Relationships and patterns may differ EIM to EIM. There are a great many ramifications and implications from these gradients, which are also dependent on particular EIMs. One such factor is the degree to which systemic relationships and interactions transpire order to order.

Philosophical Application to Science

Science is the philosophical study of nature, but philosophy too has taxonomic order. There are also multiple epistemologies each of which distinguishes itself essentially on the manner it sources truth. Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology, seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Conversations that mix epistemological truths within the same discussion usually are not compliant with the criteria established within what we call the realm of c’s. Factors such as cohesion, congruence metrics will not find strong purchase re a given investigation where truth is epistemologically diluted. Under Elegant Reasonism all epistemologies are considered; however, they are statistically weighted relative to the compliance with 100% of the realm of c’s factors, one of which is whether or not closure with the unified Universe is accomplished. Encapsulation rules preclude any blending or hybrid approach. 100% of attainment must be from within a given EIM. EIM rules require any tweak be considered an iteration of the basis EIM. Should changes be great enough a net new EIM would then be warranted where subsequent internal changes would be iterations on that basis. All EIMs are quantified and codified in this manner consistent with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) Standards.

Traditionally science is epistemologically tied to empiricism. Empiricism is a specific epistemology that in one sense commits Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). When we erroneously mistake our abstractions for actual reality such errors are committed. There is a fine line between commission and cognizance of these various issues. Navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) is dependent on the effectiveness of that cognizance. The process then places key Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) in juxtaposition of all EIMs employed by any given investigation (remember that at least one employed EIM must close to unification). The central issue generally reconciled through this process are multiple simultaneously true (e.g. logically correct) theories whose consequences and agreement with experiment are all the same. The task of comparing to nature’s reality then also requires complete integration of philosophy (part of which is science) and reality.

Once all EIMs are enabled in this manner, quantified, codified, then the philosophical aspects as well as the nuances of instantiation by reality may be more fully explored.

What Is At Issue

Strategically the question is what is at issue. The problem with that question comes down to whether or not you are committing Langer Epistemology Errors. If you are committing those errors and you erroneously believe science is dealing directly with reality, then you are asking the wrong set of questions and you may never fathom the correct set. If on the other hand you recognize the implications of such errors and you realize that, as Niels Bohr points out, all material particles are abstractions and you also understand the implications of that in terms of modern information sciences theories then you realize we are actually instantiating those abstractions and not reality. Rather reality is instantiating the abstractions we have of it and not we of it. The insight gained from these situations is that actual real reality may instantiate more than one set of abstractions. Just because you have a particular set feathering your familial environs does not mean that there is not another set. We must then back up and objectively make sure that our EIM is capable of alignment with the unified Universe or not. The only EIM we have found which meet those criteria is The Emergence Model.

Scenario A: Innocently Committing LEEs and Oblivious to them

When someone is oblivious to the implications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) they believe their abstractions ‘are’ reality. They rationalize away incongruous clues that might otherwise illuminate their errors. One example clue most often handled in that fashion is the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. Constructs like inertial frames are rationalized in relativistic settings but that ignores the fundamental truth regarding the real objects in even that frame of reference. The spacetime-mass interface philosophical implications are generally not considered. Time’s arrow, time travel, even real objects like highly mineralized quartz are not fully explored in context of the supernova that had to have produced those objects in the first place. Pallasite meteorites are not proffered relative to and respective of supernovas because then the intervening interstellar distance would have to be reconciled relative to how old we thought the universe actually was and that would dismantle those associated theories. The Emergence Model reconciles 100% of those issues. The more you study it the more you will comprehend how that reconciliation manifests itself. The point here is that the sets of questions asked are highly dependent on whether or not you are aware of the implications and ramifications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors.

Scenario A folks are not aware they are doing anything wrong and think that science is explaining the exact nature of reality, rather than the correct view that reality is instantiating our abstractions of it. The distinction, subtle though it may be is quite profound in its nature.

Scenario B: Committing LEEs, Aware Of Them At A Beginner’s Level

In this case you are beginning to be aware of that fine line between our abstractions and actual reality. You are beginning to learn how to enable Translation Matrices analytical layers in order to improve effective navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF). You are now becoming situationally aware of the source of truth relative to and respective of conversational statements and they give you pause for reflection (often…). You are becoming critically situationally aware of conversational dynamics across the investigative team, group, and larger areas of influence from an interpersonal point of view. Your journey to the precipice of unification is maturing as you learn and other forays present other opportunities. This is a critical time when those who do not share your experiences will not appreciate your insights. Such frustrations will be fodder for improving articulation skills and you will become aware that your insights must be delivered in fully aware context of the process and framework that developed them, lest the other parties will not comprehend what you have accomplished (because those accomplishments will be perceived out of context).

Langer New Knowledge
Langer on New Knowledge

Whole New Realms of Terms & Questions

As civilization more fully understands and employs Elegant Reasonism as a process, technological framework, and epistemology new areas of study will emerge. Cognitive velocity will take on new meaning relative to EIMs and how actual real reality instantiates them. Reality instantiates the abstractions we have of it, not the other way around. Different EIMs establish contextual relationships and patterns that are encapsulated resulting in a boundary compartmentalization distinct from all other EIMs. Only when EIMs are fully quantified, codified, and then placed within Translation Matrices are their comparative distinctiveness illuminated and subjected to analytical rigor. Cognitive viscosity relative to and respective of EIM to reality relationships and the abstractions that reflect them will likely come into their own. Perhaps new EIMs will emerge as well and the power with which all this might be wielded will be enhanced making it all that much more powerful. In wielding that power too comes great responsibility not just to us as individuals but larger spheres of influence and to civilization as a whole.


REpresentational State Transfer (REST) emerges from information sciences over the last several decades as a way to guide network systems interactions. Not until you fully comprehend the fact that abstractions create something of a lubrication layer between actual reality and higher ordered constructs employing them (if you will allow that metaphor), do the implications and applications of REST become apparent across the realm here. Essentially these types of guidelines establish indirect requirements on remote systems with the objective of improving operational interactions down value chains and supply chains. Here, these types of guidelines form an explanation for indirect relationships and patterns, usually spanning scales, distance, or even domains of discourse. For example, most folks have this emotional desire to run to the nearest theoretical astrophysicist when the subject of unification comes up. Who would you run to for an explanation of how art appreciation connects back to unification? How about economics? We would argue that in the former case the answer is Susanne K Langer‘s body of work.

LVM Human Action
Ludwig von Mises Human Action

In the latter case it is Ludwig von Mises‘ body of work. In both of these examples those individuals had no idea they were lining up affinity relationships with the unified Universe, but they did work to explain those subjects in context of human physiology and behavior which then connects them to the unified Universe even if only restfully so. Both of these people are represented in our User Library available for free to registered users. The point being made here arose in context of recognition of the insight demanded by the concept of unification requiring a credible path to integrate everything real. We were trying to break Elegant Reasonism, but what we wound up doing was strengthening it. These subjects and a great deal more, indeed everything we tried – all mode shift into alignment with the unified Universe. You try it. Perhaps you can succeed in breaking it, or perhaps improving on what we built. Either way, civilization benefits. There is some possibility that we are just out in left field with all of this, but if we are we certainly didn’t recognize it. We have worked on all this for almost two decades and our only result seems to improve and strengthen what has been developed and so we lay all of this at your feet and finger tips in as transparent a manner possible.

The Arrogance Thread

If we had to put a label on such a common thread throughout civilization that would be it and it would be fueled as a function of LEEs Empiricism Trap. Then we have to deal and cope with the normal stages of grief people go through any time something traumatic happens. Circa 2023 the state of civilization is such that a vast array of people are highly invested in status quo thinking modeling reality for whatever reason and its not that they don’t want what all of this is selling, they are actively trying to destroy it so that it can’t influence their familial surroundings. That situation results in such folks not wanting anyone else to be aware of all this either. Our experience is that once you can see as you look (e.g. you understand to the point of conversational awareness) you become a threat to those entities. We did not use the word entities lightly in place of people or individuals because this situation is a great deal larger than that. Bastions of institutionalized thinking feel the same threat, likely for many of the same reasons. They too are going to transition through those same stages of grief and it does not matter what type of institution, corporation or enterprise they may be. Six Sigma black belts need to be keenly aware of these issues.  Excellence demands penetration of such barriers. These issues are rampant throughout civilization, for example: including in the court room justifying what constitutes evidence, the voir dire process, and many other aspects of legal systems around the world. If we had to distill the epicenter down of all these various issues they can be traced back to LEEs Empiricism Trap. We believe humanity is better than to succumb to such. We believe humanity can recognize, learn, adapt, employ and build stronger foundations that will endure the millennia to come.

That arrogance instilled since those ancient campfire days before the dawn of history persists for a long time in our psyche. The world is not flat, nor are we at the center of the unified Universe. If anything we are even smaller, perhaps more insignificant than we were before these revelations. Remember that as you look at the video on the entanglement gradient page here that all of that is only what is inside of our particle horizon and it constitutes “our small part” of the whole of the unified Universe which if all this is correct is immensely larger. Perhaps to the closest thing to infinity we might ever imagine. The fine distinction between understanding and discerning where that line is between what our fingers touch and the real reality instantiating those abstractions is awareness beyond our ancient ancestors. The ascent of man continues beyond the thresholds immediately before the senses of our physiology and demands the intellect of us all.

Unification Represents The Holistic Whole

Our original systems review, notes from which are online here, ultimately developed something we call: Concept Sieves. Concept Sieves usually are EIM based, but must mode shift regardless of their basis. It a given concept does not mode shift then at best it is only logical in its nature. At worst is proven not to exist at all, in any form (which is a useful insight if only because it eliminates wasteful discussion). Emergence Model Concept Sieve 01 (EMCS01) contains over 400 such concepts, including their mathematics, and all of them mode shift. Simultaneously so. We developed three such concept sieves:

The holistic whole is, here perhaps, representative of the unified Universe and we argue that they must be considered in that manner. We can not cherry pick this or that domain of discourse or constituent detail set. One must be able to integrate absolutely everything real as a derivative of a given Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) or it is not that holistic whole. If your worldview can not survive the associated analytical rigor of this utility process and its framework supporting the epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe, then we suggest you have some thinking to do.

Unification demands the ability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real constructs and objects in every frame of reference. Unification demands all reference frames to be fully coupled to all forces within that frame acting on any real object also in that frame. If you can’t do that then you are not operating from the precipice of a fully compliant EIM. If your worldview can not replicate the manifestation of everything real consistent with established ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards, then you have some thinking to do. We argue that the cogent description of M5 meets these criteria and a great deal more in a self-evident manner. Remember, EIMs establish fundamental interpretative context and a plurality of EIMs must be used and in juxtaposition (under Elegant Reasonism Rules) relative to and respective of any given set of POI/N under scrutiny. Also remember that if we take individual MBPs from M5 as a system, then under that EIM, everything real is a system or system of systems. The implication there establishes a need for credible systems engineering skills be employed by any given investigation.

Pondering The Path Forward

For all but an ever vanishing period near the dawn of time and history, truth will be taken as a function of the unified Universe if for no other reason than it is ubiquitous everywhere. The only question is how long it take humanity to embrace that truth, integrate it in & across society, and then inculcate it within its culture for the sake of our progeny. Our experience has been that once understood, it can not be undone. Every subsequent action builds on that awareness or at least takes it into account, even if only in an ineffable way so subtle as to go unnoticed by all but the most skilled. As with all new knowledge emerging from the realms of science, much changes In Unification’s Wake and we have a series of presentations discussing a few of such subjects.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights and the resulting actions you take.



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #unifiedUniverse #SixSigma #SystemsEngineering #InformationScience #InformationSystems #Systems #Reality


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