First Principles Thinking 01First Principles Thinking

Elegant Reasonism First Principles

First principles in science work up to the point where multiple theories are shown to have all consequences the same and agree with experiment, and then investigators must revert to philosophical understanding of the unified Universe and re-enter science. Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish fundamental interpretative context. It is for that reason that investigators are here required to employ a plurality of them in order to surround and otherwise immerse how reality instantiates particular Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) within each distinct EIM. Philosophical and scientific rigor demand each EIM characterization be fully compliant with the realm of the c’s and Elegant Reasonism Rules in order to effectively navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) in order to present a standards based Treatise aligned with the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism therefore has been specifically designed as a utility process, employing a technological framework, epistemologically supporting truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, and which produced the first fully compliant EIM closing to unification: The Emergence Model. Presentation of insights so developed absent cognizant comprehension of the means by which they were developed must be construed as ‘out of context’.

Strategic Issue


Science producing multiple theories which are all simultaneously: logically correct, have all consequences the same, and agree with experiment faces the limits of its intended purpose and design representing problems in consistent subsequent action by investigators.


Many if not most, perhaps all, investigators (due to innocent commission of Langer Epistemology Errors) do not recognize philosophical limitations of science. Therefore and consequently ever more elaborate rationalizations essentially paralyze further analysis, due in part to LEEs Empiricism Trap resulting in an inability to recognize that even traditional first principles (because they are science based) must too be mode shifted.


  1. Do nothing, sit back and watch status quo thinking modeling reality struggle under the mistaken opinion they are working directly with reality.
  2. Cater to leadership ego, making constant suggestions by asking questions one who conversationally comprehends Elegant Reasonism knows they can not answer, publicly.
  3. Fully embrace Elegant Reasonism, develop and present an array of basic materials everyone can engage and employ, in order to revolutionize civilization’s approach to philosophy and science in a standards based manner to maximize complicity consistent with the unified Universe.




  • Empiricism is a, not ‘the’, philosophical study of knowledge, there are others. They generally distinguish themselves in how they source truth. Elegant Reasonism joins traditional epistemologies and sources its truth as a function of the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology, is considered a superset epistemology in as much as it statistically weights input from all other epistemologies relative to and respective of the unified Universe. That is all other epistemologies must be able to manifest everything real consistent with the rules and the realm of c’s, and are statistically weighted based on their ability to accomplish that task.
  • Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish fundamental interpretative context manifesting self-inducing boundaries only visible when illuminated in the investigative plurality rules of Elegant Reasonism. EIMs are generally not recognizable from other EIM compartmentalization exactly because their relationships and patterns are different. Mathematical results from one EIM to another is not transferable for the same reasons. The mechanics of mathematics is the same, but the parameter relationships and patterns are not.
  • Status quo thinking modeling reality is out of context relative to and respective of the unified Universe. EIMs M1, M2 are logical in their nature and will never close to unification because their core construct relationships and patterns preclude it. Unification must be accomplished by a different EIM: The Emergence Model does in fact close to unification and does so elegantly.
  • The unified Universe requires and demands credible reintegration of everything real, not just one particular domain of discourse, but all of them and simultaneously so.
  • Exactly because human physiology is inextricably intrinsic to what is being defined and otherwise characterized demands and requires higher levels of standards based; rigor, process, and analytical approaches, and tools.
  • No human that has ever lived is innocent of committing such mistakes therefore we all must wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally to performance excellence quality standards. (This website is our feeble attempt to do exactly that.)

Next Steps


  • Life, especially within Sol System biospheres, and:
    • Publishers of peer reviewed papers,
    • Accreditation agencies,
    • Boards of Trustees, Education, Corporations, etc.
    • Leadership positions everywhere…


  1. Bus or the band wagon?
    Bus or the band wagon?


    1. Identify the problem you want to solve relative to and respective of the unified Universe.
    2. Break it down into the fundamental pieces.
      1. Quantify, codify, and document 100% of associated Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) unique to your investigation and directly associated abstractions.
      2. Inventory historical fundamental foundations relative to and respective of established Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) for appropriate handling during subsequent phases
      3. Historical paradigms, constructs, etc. that are no longer in use, the luminiferous aether for example, must also be inventoried and appropriately handled during the illumination phase for subsequent analytical reconciliation. No associated abstraction should not be so addressed.
    3. Establish cognitive understanding of the systemic context made manifest by the set of abstraction assumptions (e.g. historic EIMs employed). Inventory 100% of the associated abstractions. Then segregate them by order of complexity from the most fundamental (which can not be further parsed) to the most complex. Then quantify and codify the most fundamental set and determine their source EIM. Make sure that every abstraction is denoted as logical (only) or (reflecting) a real construct. Make sure to note the source of reality for all constructs considered real.
      1. Because humans ultimately view instantiated reality through lenses created by abstractions systems engineering principles, processes, and practices are required.
        1. Also reference Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)
      2. Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) require sentient investigators to recognize:
        1. Mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal.
        2. Commission of such mistakes is a slippery slope leading into being ensnared by LEEs Empiricism Trap.
      3. A fine line exists between EIM characterizations and the instantiation reality makes manifest and the two domains should never be confused.
      4. Reality should always be held unique, distinct, and litmus.
      5. Expanded Stages of Grief
        Expanded Stages of Grief

        Do not fall prey to superficial observations.

        1. Unification has its own set of requirements we must constantly work to understand.
        2. The Emergence Model, while it does close to unification and satiates current Rules there is no guarantee others won’t superseded it.
          1. Reference frames made manifest by this EIM are: Event Frames and Local Frames.
          2. Is holistically represented by two views one logical (e.g. M5) and one real (e.g. M6). The latter instantiates the former, both are required and are equally referred to when the phrase “The Emergence Model” is employed. There is a special note here and it is a derivative of the ability and capacity of civilization to conduct measurements, that observes humanity is not yet mature enough to work with M6. The statement is one of technical development as well as sociological conditions necessary to support the kind of rigor needed to conduct such an effort. Strategically at issue in that insight is celebrating the source of inspiration and other factors.
          3. Conversational skills associated with Elegant Reasonism develop with experience. Wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally with great empathy and compassion as many are not yet ready for the results it renders. Having said that, know that this train has left the station and the future is clear. Those that can adapt, will. Each individual must assess their own case, needs, and wants. Remember, insights must be delivered in context of cognizant understanding of the process used to develop them. Elegant Reasonism is flowing out to civilization like water through a net or sieve. One may either go with the flow or be caught by the net. The choice is up to the individual in context of their worldview. We are rolling all this out similar to the way computing engaged business from 1940 through to the present day. Elegant Reasonism was and is, inevitable. Elegant Reasonism illuminates the path forward to illustration. It will not be stopped.
    4. Question and challenge your assumptions
      1. Effective knowledge management in full holistic compliance of context as established by Elegant Reasonism
        1. Effective investigators will first assure knowledge management capabilities of all assigned team members and available resources for augmentation purposes.
          1. Be aware of issues involving Computing As A Tool for Human Augmentation implications and ramifications (making sure to update all appropriate assumptions).
        2. CAUTION TO INVESTIGATORS: Answers to standard root cause analysis will mode shift EIM to EIM, do not assume the same answer under different EIMs. Likewise the set of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns will also mode shift EIM to EIM. What may be oblivious under one EIM is rendered into clarity by another. Answers previously considered as answering why questions under one EIM become descriptions of what under other EIMs and why is reconciled in a completely unexpected manner.
        3. Investigators would be wise to document what it is they think they know before beginning any given investigation in order that those assumptions and preconceptions may be quantified and codified for subsequent Bayesian Analytics so that effective education road maps may be developed as a result of your investigation.
          1. Does the entire investigative team understand the implications and ramifications of their existing thinking relative to being able to close to unification? What are the plans associated with that status?
          2. Does everyone on the team understand why status quo thinking modeling reality does not, nor will it ever, close to unification? If not, why not? Plans?
      2. Inventory all pre-existing commissions of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and areas of previous investigations that are ensnared within LEEs Empiricism Traps.
      3. Exploit our original systems review where appropriate and as required.
      4. Exploit available resources: Articles here, Presentations, Videos, and our User Library materials all as appropriate.
    5. Create a new solution from the ground up
      1. Make sure to be cognizant of framework layers that are to be completed in order to enable effective mode shifting
  2. Illumination
    1. Enable effective mode shifting for your selected POI/N such that all investigators can navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF)
    2. All POI/N are quantified, codified, and documented conversationally in juxtaposition Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) to EIM, including at least one EIM of which closes to unification
    3. Investigation holistically is fully compliant with Elegant Reasonism Rules, established standards, especially including the realm of the c’s.
    4. While the mechanics of mathematics does not change, the parameters and their boundary limits may (likely do) change and new levels of rigor are required in order to fully reconcile these issues.
      1. Also note any limitations in representing effective mathematics within associated systems (including this one).
    5. Make sure to appropriately, and effectively, enable mode shifting relative to and respective of what it was you thought you knew prior to beginning the investigation. Leave nothing out.
  3. Analysis
    1. Standards
      1. Make sure all historical references are appropriately dealt with to this investigation’s standards of integrity
    2. ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS)
    3. Performance Excellence Programs (NPEP) as appropriate
      1. Remember that as you cycle through (recursively) the PDCF that the very metrics you employ may also need to be mode shifted in order to meet goals and objectives.
    4. Baldrige Quality Program, as appropriate
      1. Baldrige Excellence Builder, as appropriate
    5. Six Sigma
      1. NOTE: Six Sigma Defect calculations are context dependent. Six Sigma Analytical layers within the framework can be set up to handle relationships as appropriate
    6. Root Cause Analysis
  4. Treatise
    1. All evidence chains anchor back to the unified Universe no matter how restful the linkage.
    2. Exploit previously established fully compliant Treatise, as appropriate.
    3. Final Treatise should always be presented within the cognizant context and situational awareness of the process, framework, and epistemology used to develop it.

Performance Excellence

First Principles Thinking
First Principles Thinking

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and potentially drag the rest of down that path with them if we are not all too careful. Investigators are encouraged to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally as they engage others external to the original investigation team. Engage others but do so with great empathy and compassion.

A plan without execution is just a fantasy. Dreams require decisions, and subsequent action in order to achieve. Do not assume that particular expertise in existing status quo thinking modeling reality will necessarily translate over into alignment with the unified Universe. Do not assume that The Emergence Model will handle all unification issues. While it has done so, so far, there is no rule or stipulation that will will continue to do so into the future. Civilization may find it necessary to find a better EIM than The Emergence Model. Do not assume only five levels of why questions in your root cause analysis. Do not assume Sigma Defects are constrained to a single EIM and not subsequent analytical layers. Do not assume that the analytical layers we outlined in our framework are the only type you may need. Employ all appropriate means to establish effective Treatise in full compliance with the unified Universe.

If others can not follow in your footsteps, then you are not finished. Make sure insights are delivered in context of the process used to develop them. Make sure before, during, and after aspects of your investigation are appropriately handled by some aspect of your investigation.

Recursive Application

When we review the entanglement gradient, and comprehend how organic matter is enabled as a function of intrinsic nature we gain more than simple insights into emergence phenomena. Life is a means for the unified Universe to learn about itself. When we recognize the entanglement path to epistemology we begin to understand how the central nervous system (CNS) and brain enable creatures to engage their environments and to learn.  Neural plasticity is powerfully enabled not just to learn but to learn to align itself with the unified Universe and that’s a powerful new capability. When we pass through the various thresholds and gain the precipice where we may both perceive and engage the unified Universe we also enable something else that is quite unique. If we intentionally implement education curricula that delivers understanding of the unified Universe we are then re-configuring to accomplish Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). For our species and civilization to be in a position where we might constantly fold education back against itself using scientific principles and Elegant Reasonism in order to seek truth as a function of the unified Universe are we then fundamentally (in essence) bringing sentience to the unified Universe itself? How cool is that?!

Understand and Communicate Systemic Implications To Your Organization

Investigators, administrators, management, and business executives need to not only understand the costs to get their organization into alignment with the unified Universe, they must also understand the risks, implications, and ramifications of not taking the appropriate timely action to do so.


Drive Process Reengineering Across All Appropriate Organizations

In the end simply being aware is insufficient if that awareness can not be put into relevant, effective, action. Subsequent Elegant Reasonism based knowledge management


First Principles Executive Summary

The spirit and intent espoused by Elon Musk with the opening graphic is in fact noble; however, it innocently presumes that the realm of physics deals directly with reality and that there is only one interpretative context. Elon in that statement is committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Such commission is a tantamount to stepping into LEEs Empiricism Trap. Can you look at the Periodic table and build traditional rockets, electric cars, etc. Obviously that answer is absolutely. What you can not do is build the kind of vehicles the US Navy chases off our coasts. Building those requires deeper insights relative to and respective of the unified Universe. If Elon is not careful when he gets to Mars there will be others already there waiting to shake his hand and wondering what took him so long.



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #unifiedUniverse #ModeShifting


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: