Elegant Reasonism Detail Sets

A “detail set” is the holistic set of facts in context of one or more Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) of the unified Universe within a given domain of discourse and which may constitute the basis of a given belief system which is then subjected to interpretative filtering by an individual or socieity’s worldview. Critical Thinking demands recognition of the fact that such a belief system based on EIMs which can not close to unification are generally [only] logical in nature. Each different epistemological philosophy of knowledge may have different detail sets forming the basis of a given entity’s belief system. “Entity” here refers to both natural people as well as artificial intelligence or machine intelligence systems. Even within such an overarching interpretation detail sets can be ‘nested’, one within another. A mechanic will have a different detail set than an engineer, though they may overlap.

Epistemological Significance of Detail Sets

The critical distinction derives from one of the requirements of Elegant Reasonism that it align with the unified Universe (e.g. unified reality). The tools and methodologies discussed holistically herein, are the manner in which that requirement is met epistemologically. Possessing a detail set as a basis of a belief system within any given epistemology which does not conform to these requirements is not based on Elegant Reasonism.

Logical Significance

Let’s take a scenario where we have a detail set supported by empirical evidence but none of that information, data, or concepts close to unification. The issue with this circumstance is that it presents a case where logical congruence manifests a context that is a function of the EIM more than actual reality. That is to say that a Langer Epistemology Error has likely been committed in one or more facets of the scenario. The point here is that empirical evidence is necessary but insufficient epistemologically since we must also have full compliance and congruence with the unified Universe consistent with Elegant Reasonism Rules.

Logic Traps

Investigators who are steadfast in believing that a scenario producing logically correct results with empirical data but none of which can be demonstrated to close to unification are essentially held in the grips of an insidious logic trap. The logic trap is formed by detail set congruence with a logically correct EIM that does not or can not close to unification. Investigators are confused by the fact that their information and what they perceive to be evidence all correlate empirically. The issue though is that it does not close to unification. Hard questions must be asked and answered.

Detail Set Congruence

EIM encapsulation manifests fundamental context for that model. That encapsulation barrier essentially constrains perception and engagement beyond that context. Congruence therefore occurs within the respective encapsulation. For example, and this note is important, for a given paradigm of interest multiple EIMs may manifest that POI/N within their relative encapsulations. That is not the same thing as ‘penetrating’ the encapsulation barrier. That coincidence does not guarantee that there are not nuances particular to each. Great care should be taken to make sure that the detail sets are completely understood EIM to EIM and that Langer Epistemology Errors are not being committed.

Detail Set Configurations

Detail Sets, of any given entity (biological or otherwise) can be “broad & shallow” or they can be “narrow & deep”, few are broad and deep. That is to say they can “know” about a great many subjects but may not know a great deal about each one. Others may know a relatively few subjects but know a great deal about those that they do know. Part of the issue articulating The Elegance of Reason series deals with these issues exactly because it requires a multidisciplinary approach and it requires some to go into great depth as well. Average people don’t think that way. They want things ‘simple’, which carries a ‘narrow & shallow’ expectation that, in the case of this series, does not exist. Unfortunately this series is more of a ‘broad & deep’ configuration, at least in terms of the R&D associated with it. This in part is what drove the development of the series as
independent books developing the various subject areas needing coverage, as a semantic example.

Another aspect of this configuration of detail sets is something which the USPTO struggles with daily and which has been an ongoing issue for industries of all sorts, famously of the software industry. It manifests there as “patent trolls”, “publisher copyright shutdown”, and other tactics which manifest, intentionally or not, “barriers to entry” or “barriers to progress”. As civilization seeks to integrate ideas into larger constructs on which greater gains, productivity, insights, etc., may be made such tactics become, in and of themselves, inhibitors. These issues are essentially a functions of the Law of Knowledge Propagation Velocity (p 282). At issue is determination of relative value and remuneration in a capitalistic society and whether or not the progress of civilization should be halted in the face of non-cooperation.

Domains of Discourse

Detail sets within any given domain of discourse will need to be mode shifted as a function of systems reviews in full compliance of unification rules in order to perceive and protect intrinsic associated value. Also note that the derivation of value (e.g. axiology) should also be mode shifted.

Mathematics Considerations

Because ‘Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) of the Universe’ establish their own unique and distinct ‘context’ mathematics in Translation Matrices or Translation Tables, is ‘model specific’ or ‘column centric’. This does not mean that the mechanics of mathematics changes, but it does mean that the relationships and various parameters used by mathematics very likely does change model to model. It is invalid and erroneous to claim or believe that relationships possess exactly the same context mode shifting from one model to another or back again. “Paradigms of nature” (e.g. paradigms of {Real} Reality or paradigms of interest). Because rule sets conspire with descriptions, abstractions, and constructs of a given model the number of parameters used to manifest a given paradigm of physics may necessarily change model to model. And it is exactly for these reasons that the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent is required. M5 often uses four in some areas where M1 uses three. All that simple fact means is that the paradigm of physics manifests differently by one model than it does by another. It does not mean the model is wrong. What it does mean is that we must use critical thinking and consider models holistically. What it does mean is that we should not attempt to take an M5 equation and immerse it in M1. That won’t work, nor will the corollary action. The very deep implication of these reflective considerations is a need to revisit the Philosophy of Mathematics (p 312).

To say that another model does or does not work “because the math in M1 or M2 ‘works’” is a bit erroneous. The math in M5 “works” too, its just that the unknowns are potentially different. M5 is different than M1 or M2. M5 has different known unknowns than does M1. The numerical values it produces for various constants are different but the relative relationships they have are similar to M1 and M2 once the distinctions of architecture and intrinsic action are taken into account. What is important is whether or not the model ‘closes mathematically’ or not. Can we take those various relationships we know to exist and check whether or not they exist in other models. If they do, then you are probably on the right path.

Theorists may wish to build models beyond M5, M6, or M7. M5 is just as logically correct as M1 or M2 and the corollary is also true. The distinction though is that M5 unifies physics through the architecture of mass. Does that mean M5 is the epitome of models of the Universe? Absolutely not. It just means it is a logically correct model that closes and happens to also unify physics. There may be an incremental model out there somewhere that does the same and does it better than M5, though as I write this I cannot fathom what that may be but that is my failure of imagination not a declaration of M5’s supremacy.