Humility

There is always room to learn. If status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification, then it too has something to learn. Perhaps it’s time to press that reset button. The trick is recognizing the need to learn and the means to do so. At the end of the day, you are the only one in charge of that process.

It never ceases to amaze me how incessant arrogance is, and the core messaging there is vigilance. Reality instantiates the abstractions employed by status quo thinking modeling reality, not the other way around and therein lay the mistake made by most. Noodle on the implications and ramifications of the quote below from Niels Bohr. If those isolated material particles manifest everything on the periodic table at one scale or another, then everything real of which they are constituents, is just as much an abstraction as they are. Right? Consider the taxonomic relationship of the various abstractions across knowledge possessed by civilization (all of it). Which set of abstractions are the most basic? What are the implications and ramification of those particular abstraction definitions to and of all others?

Abstractions

Abstractions may generally be characterized by, but not limited to, such a list as that here below:

• have a tendency to insulate and isolate lower ordered detail from higher ordered ideas,
• are labels usually defined in a particular manner relative to and respective of some order of complexity along the entanglement gradient associated with particular constructs
• herein, are employed across all domains of discourse and detail sets,
• all abstractions are systemic derivatives except those employed as core constructs of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs), which must by definition credibly manifest everything real,
• core construct abstractions must philosophically enable manifestation of the unified Universe, or they are ill defined,
• Redefining core construct abstractions is not directly the answer because EIMs manifest fundamental interpretation in the first place, and any changes systemically ripple up through all orders of complexity in the second place. Thirdly definitional changes also change relationships and patterns in unexpected manners. These three factors, and others, result in an Elegant Reasonism Rule requiring and demanding that EIMs be enumerated and iterated, not tweaked, in order to maintain proper focus on such dynamics in a standardized manner.

Susanne K Langer

Langer first noted in the body of her work, in 1948, that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is a fatal error in epistemology (philosophy of {e.g. study of} knowledge). During our original systems review we came to appreciate the implications and ramification of this insight relative to and respective of modern information sciences principles, practices, processes, and professions, most especially that of Systems Engineering.

When we objectively back up from the concept of unification we realize that the subject isn’t just about physics. To say that it is ignores the hard cold fact that it is also about everything else as well. Unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real. Consequently to confine the discussion to astrophysical phenomena while necessary is completely and wholly insufficient. Unification requires everything real across the entire entanglement gradient regardless if your investigative vector is emergent or convergent.

Mistaking abstractions for actual reality constitutes commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Taxonomy

Those who forget history and celebrate the successes of the laboratory and technology associated with instrumentality forget two important factors: that science is the philosophy of nature, and humans tend to build into technology abstraction representation, often in and of itself is another form of abstraction. When we have multiple theories whose consequences are all the same and which agree with experiment, empirical science ceases to be effective and we must revert back up the philosophical taxonomy and ask harder questions about nature and its character relative to and respective of the various abstractions we create reflecting it for us. Some call such investigations comparisons to the degree of nature affinity. That is to say which theory looks more natural than the others, but we must remember that such comparisons are subjective relative to and respective of human physiology. We must never forget that we are inside that same test tube. Philosophically Elegant Reasonism can be thought of as a net new epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Branches of philosophy are mode shifted to the precipice of the unified Universe.

To be clear, the majority of accomplishments made by civilization to date have been accomplished through empirical science (e.g. employing the epistemology of empiricism), but here that is necessary but insufficient to gain the precipice of the unified Universe. The basis of our philosophy must close to unification and predicate other philosophical pursuits. We must be able to tie truth to ultimate natural truth.

1. Philosophy: study of the unified Universe (e.g. all that is real) as a source of truth mode shifts:
   1. Axiology: Philosophy of value derivation
   2. Epistemology: Philosophy of knowledge
   3. Ontology: Philosophy of being
   4. Science: Philosophy of nature
   5. Supervenience: Philosophy of relation between sets of properties or sets of facts

Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism is a superset epistemology in as much as the other types are statistically weighted relative to their ability to manifest everything real (in a scientific manner). What distinguishes them from each other is their relative and respective sources of truth. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe and does so as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after one gets into that domain of discourse. Once you can conversationally fathom the unified Universe and easily discern not just logic artifacts but their derivative constructs you will be able to wield Elegant Reasonism with reasonable effect and to reasonable affect.

Mapping Your Investigation’s Domain

Ever wonder why one of the ethics questions regarding PhD candidacy is not whether or not your dissertation closes to unification? Nor does that process explore the implications or ramifications of the fact that it does not close. Part of the reasons and factors associated with such ponderings has to do with the assumption that civilization is working directly with reality, rather than abstractions of it. We say things like “we are pushing the boundaries of science”. We never pause for a minute to ask if there are alternative explanations for what it is we already think we know. We have historically taken empiricism as hard cold fact and evidence. LEEs Empiricism Trap is a type of logic trap spawned by empiricism that obfuscates the real path to the perspective afforded by the unified Universe. One of the ramifications of all that diminishes the implications of commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. When we ultimately recognize that EIMs manifest fundamental interpretative context, we too then must recognize what we connect premises of such papers to is in fact that particular context as made manifest by that particular EIM. The relevance of which does or does not close relative to and respective of the unified Universe.

To be clear there is no human who has ever lived, circa 2023, that has not committed Langer Epistemology Errors. Most of us commit them many times a day because if we did not we would find communications with others exceedingly difficult. What we must do is recognize that we are committing them, know them for what they are (relative to scientific pursuits) and position them properly within a given investigation, paper, or experiment.

Accomplishing Unification

First recognize that here, all models of reality are encapsulated. That means they are quantified, and codified. Then they are enumerated. If small changes are needed in any given model then they are iterated and the iteration clearly denoted. No change escapes this requirement. You may employ our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or any equivalent relational database tool for that purpose. There is no hard requirement that our tool must be used. In fact we offer it empty so that you may set it up to your requirements. Neither flat files, nor spreadsheets will suffice because they lack the needed checks and balances. Second recognize that Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. It was that process that developed The Emergence Model. While our process developed that model, and its cogent description does close to unification, there is no hard requirement that it be the EIM employed by your investigation. You are free to choose any EIM you wish, so long as it is fully compliant, and closes to unification. It just happens that, as far as we know, The Emergence Model is the only EIM meeting that criteria, but that situation may not always be the case.

When you look across the array of products in our online shop they may seem curious from a merchandising point of view but know that many, if not all of them are designed as education aids and classroom props. Hats and shirts are set up so students may form debate teams that bring focus to the character of a given EIM. Those same props used by investigation teams may help build teamwork and add some fun to the effort. Coffee mugs can be used as ice breakers or teaching aids. The choice is yours.

Fake Vampire Kits

Everyone doesn’t come to understand new knowledge overnight. The primary development period for all of this was between 2004 and 2019. We began explaining it around 2009 and released our original systems review notes in 2012. During the majority of that deniers reigned the train station, but that train has now departed. We built this website to help anyone on Earth humble enough to learn. All we ask is you remember us if you are able to apply it commercially. You have nothing to prove to anyone but yourself. All we are trying to accomplish is give you the tools so you can get that done on your own.

To manifest an argument or discussion about the authenticity for a kit built for some task against a creature that does not exist, would in a court of law constitute fraud.  The word fantasy comes to mind. The discussion is not about what people did or did not believe in the middle ages. The issue is what constitutes fact and evidence going forward. Herein something is considered true if it can be shown to be consistent with the unified Universe. Evidence chains should anchor out to established constructs consistent with fully compliant treatise based on EIMs that close to unification. Someone wielding such a kit as that illustrated here may be more dangerous than the creature they think they seek. Especially when one considers the damage some of those instruments may inflict upon the innocent. Those promulgating such feldercarb are little more than snake oil salesmen.

If we loosely employ the term ‘evidence’ or ‘fact’ without first declaring the basis EIM manifesting the context of that consideration we are compounding sins as it were. The ultimate situation or scenario might not significantly change, but why it is true may. In the end truth matters as does it’s source.

The point here is to be careful in terms of what constitutes evidence. Be critically situationally aware in your thinking. Question whether or not empiricism is enough to warrant the label evidence or not. If the scenario under review requires a perspective from the unified Universe, it is necessary but insufficient.

Simple Tests

There are a few simple tests one might rhetorically entertain.

• Which EIM can be reduced to a single cogent paragraph that manifests everything real across all scales of the entire entanglement gradient?
• Which EIM best explains the arrow of time?
• Which EIM can best characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang?
• Which EIM reconciles employment of a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference?
• Which EIM fully couples all reference frames?

There are more questions that might be asked to be sure. The answers to the above are here for the industrious and perhaps persistent. Remember that EIMs manifest fundamental interpretative context. The implication of that insight is not to expect the material here to be in context of what you already know, because it won’t be. What it provides is the process and framework needed to establish those contexts relative to and respective of your own investigation. As you progress in your learning perhaps your own Ah Ha! moments will be your greatest inspiration.

We anxiously look forward to your mode shifted insights with great glee. If what we have provided here helps you in any way please consider helping us continue our work. Contact us if you have questions about how to accomplish that or invest in what we are trying to accomplish for civilization.