Onward

Benchmark Set, Next…

The path forward is clear. So far Elegant Reasonism and The Emergence Model have survived all net new science, including that from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and LIGO. Many people tend to think in black and white terms when in fact simultaneous truths are at play exactly because of implications and ramifications of LEE commission and modern information sciences concepts and principles; most notably Systems Engineering. LEEs Empiricism Trap is insidious, mostly because it tricks us into thinking we are dealing directly with reality and when we discover something incongruous it makes no sense and confuses everyone. I can not begin to express or articulate the sense of freedom one acquires when you finally recognize LEEs for what they are and the implication and ramifications they hold for core construct abstractions. If your mode of thinking does not close to unification (e.g. line up with the unified Universe) then we very strongly suggest you push Reset. There is a fine line between those abstractions and the reality that instantiates them, which we should never cross, lest we commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

If You Only Look Under Your Nose, How Far Do You See?

Tradition & History Were NOT ‘Wrong‘, Just Only Logically Correct

When recognition settles in it will very likely be an ineffable moment that you will never forget. What Albert Einstein created beginning in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. Two other major pieces to the puzzle are Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and modern information sciences principles, practices, processes, and especially Systems Engineering. Rhetorically, ponder this: if you believe that science deals directly with reality then how can any given two theories be simultaneously correct, have all consequences the same and both agree with experiment? The answer lay in the core abstraction layers, and because something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. Reality is instantiating the logically correct abstraction set but that does not mean that set perfectly characterizes reality, only that reality instantiates them. That fine distinction matters a great deal.

Do you know what problem Einstein was working to solve by writing his paper in the first place? A clue might be that it was not unification. He had been contemplating results from interferometer experiments from the previous years. Those experiments always reported the same value for the speed of light, and that made little sense to anyone at the time. Again, rhetorically, if you take a firearm and 1,000 rounds of ammunition and fire all it through a chronometer that measures the velocity of the bullet, and presuming idealized ammunition, is the speed of the bullet governed by the system producing it or by the air through which it passes? We’ll get back to that in a minute.

Computer Based Gaming Realms

There are any number of gaming devices and software that create all sorts of entire worlds or realms in which to entertain and otherwise distract you from daily trials and tribulations. Immersion within such realms (presuming they are of high fidelity and quality) are reasonably comprehensive (given what they are). Some of them trend more towards simulators, while others implement complete fantasy realms. All of them use the same equations scientists use, the only distinction is that the programmers of those games control the values placed into key variables. That’s how super powers are granted to characters, objects, devices, and vehicles. Scientists don’t do that, they rather must use empirically derived values documented by science. There is an intrinsic assumption being made in that previous sentence though and it is that science is dealing directly with reality, rather than abstractions of it – and there is the strategic rub.

The key skill take away here is being able to discern logical realms from reality.

The Fine Line

There is a fine line between fundamental abstractions defining EIM core constructs and the reality instantiating them, which we must never cross, lest we find ourselves guilty of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). We need only look at history to understand the consequences of being ensnared by LEEs Empiricism Trap. To us, the warning is clear.

Logic Traps

If your worldview does not philosophically close to unification entering science then you are held within a logic trap whose grip only tightens if you fail to grasp the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors. Our original systems review notes suggest that the only escape from such a logic trap is Elegant Reasonism and The Emergence Model. We have looked for almost two decades and we’ve not been able to find another exit. Remember that we humans are inside the proverbial test tube here. We are intrinsically part of what is. The challenge then is to characterize everything real consistent with unification. It has been said that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Einstein said that “we can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them”, and he was a great deal more correct than even he knew.

Susanne K Langer

Susanne K Langer was the first American woman to be professionally and publicly recognized as a philosopher. Her insights were almost entirely ignored however by the science community at large. Not more than a handful of people recognized (but did not know what to do with them) her insights, until they were encountered by us. We realized the situation and went looking to see if anyone else had noticed the same thing we found and that search is what we were doing when we found Langer. We are eternally grateful for her and her body of work because it meant that someone else quantified and codified the same awareness. Langer noted, in 1948, that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal. Consequently we call those types of errors Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) to honor the body of her work. Bad as those errors are their implications and ramifications are almost always much more devastating (epistemologically).

An Inability Of Penetrating LEEs Gate Is Perhaps The Single Greatest Inhibitor To Understanding Unification

Mode Shift IT!

If you have a situation or scenario that is puzzling represents issues to one EIM then mode shift it into the context of a different EIM. This is especially necessary if the original EIM did not close to unification. Remember, at least one EIM employed by any given investigation must close to unification. Reality is instantiating the abstractions you are using, you are not directly describing reality. If you think something is wrong, it is those abstractions or some associated detail that is wrong, not reality. Here reality represents truth as a function of the unified Universe. If you need a metaphor for this operation think about the diopter machine used when you go in for an eye exam to see if you need new glasses. Change out the lens through which your paradigms are made manifest and see if that serves to illuminate the problems being investigated or scrutinized. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking such an approach.

Recursively cycle through the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) looking for ways to improve the effectiveness. In our experience there is usually some implication associated with commission of LEEs that have prevented some factor from passing through LEEs Gate on the PDCF.

Don’t Be So Sure…, The unified Universe May Humble You

You may have the perfect paper. That paper may have won all sorts of accolades. Does it close to unification? No? If not then you need to mode shift that paper and see if it still says what you thought it did. The good news is that we don’t have to start over from scratch. We can begin right from where we are. That is we can mode shift what it is we already think we know into alignment with the unified Universe. This is something of a double edged sword however. EIM encapsulation boundaries preclude any intuitively obvious recognition of that mode shifted view unless you actually go do that work.

The unified Universe Exists

We hold that self-evident. Reality instantiates the abstractions we have of it. The set of abstractions associated with the EIM M5, close to unification. Others, do not and you must be skeptical about the reality those that do not close, foretell. Those who can not fathom implications and ramifications of commission of LEEs could come to the conclusion that reality does not exist because they do not understand modern information sciences principles relative to logical views of real systems. Because they erroneously believe that their world view is reality, they can not fathom another world view that is simultaneously logically correct and that reality also instantiates that logical view. The question we need to be asking is which logical view philosophically closes to unification and then enter science. If you enter science believing you are dealing with reality directly then there is no impetus to ask harder philosophical questions for which science has no basis. One clue indicating such circumstances are in play is the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point for every real object in every reference frame. If you can’t do that, then your world view does not close to unification, and it is just that simple.

“THE” unified Universe vs “Our” Particle Horizon

In hindsight, and presuming that The Emergence Model turns out to be the only EIM closing to unification (which we do not believe will ultimately be the case – but for now is) then what is inside our particle horizon, however big that ultimately turns out to be, makes all of that pale by comparison. Our particle horizon may as well be but a mote in God’s eye. Put that into context of the entanglement gradient inside our particle horizon then the Bang to Bang characterization under this EIM finds us infinitesimally small compared to that vastness.

Perhaps with a great deal of irony finds the ancient tales of light and darkness prevail even here when we consider how our star nurtures life and the ultimate darkness are black holes whose event horizon temperatures exceed even Biblical characterizations. Somewhat humorously we note that there is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of action which yields heat from the configurations of what is. The path forward then is simply to stay in the light wherever we can. In the end that’s the only thing all life can seek with any credibility. To seek that ultimate darkness essentially serves no purpose beyond suicide. Information is contained as a function of architecture, and the event horizon of a black hole subjects everything real to an Event Frame exceeding architectural Severance. Merging black holes only create more massive black holes. That recursive process will continue until such time as that black hole finds itself in an Event Frame with another where the relative Severance energies exceed that of all objects in the frame, in which case we have yet another bang somewhere else, and the process starts all over again. We will never know how many times it has already happened. We will never know the extent of the actual real unified Universe because all of that lay beyond our particle horizon. For all practical purposes that extent is infinite.

The take away then brings our focus back to our little corner of the unified Universe. We need to deal and cope with what we have on our proverbial wagon, right here, right now. Under this EIM the only time that exists is now. Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift – that’s why it is called the present.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights.