Logic Artifacts

EIM Remaining Incongruities are Logic Artifacts

Realizing that Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) establish fundamental, foundational in fact, context we are must then recognize that any puzzling clue or incongruity between what is predicted by that EIM and the unified Universe which we must hold litmus (else we risk commission of Langer Epistemology Errors) constitute an artifact arising from the logical assertions associated with that particular EIM.

Natural Artifacts

Natural artifacts may arise in the form of an object that is out of place. BX442 is an astronomical example.

Logically Correct Artifacts That Can Not Close

Circa 2021 science is replete with experimental and mathematical results which have great affinity with nature but which also can never close to unification. All of these are simply examples that need to be mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe. Critical situationally aware thinking reminds us that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different and if you are completely ignorant of Langer Epistemology Errors then there is a high probability that you may believe your results are of that physical view rather than the logically correct EIM driving context for your particular worldview. You must ask: can I take these particular set of circumstances and patently demonstrate how they connect to the unified Universe? If your answer to that question is 'no', then you have work to do. It's just that simple. Anyone can walk down our Acknowledgments page or review any entry in the User Library and literally find thousands upon thousands of examples waiting to be mode shifted.

Implications of Simultaneous Truths

You have what you think is a fabulous example that will prove Elegant Reasonism is all wet. Your scenario has empirical data supporting it. Thousands of mathematical papers down through history have been written by some of the most famous people to have ever lived. You can not possibly be wrong, right? Well hang on a minute. That kind of thinking needs calibration. What if its not wrong at all in the context of the EIM which manifests it? What if there is another, different EIM, that can also manifest simultaneous logical truth?

The correct question is not whether simultaneous truth has been accomplished but whether or not affinity with the unified Universe has been accomplished. If both have congruence with the unified Universe then and only then can you ask which is the better theory. Presumably by the time you make it through the framework and the Decision Checkpoint Flowchart you will also have enough fodder to make that determination.

Can A Common Geometric Basis Be Employed?

Can all real objects in any given scenario all be tied to a common geometric basis? Before you answer that question make sure you have a comprehensive list of the objects considered to be real and that you know how to properly define those objects such that those definitions systemically comply with the realm of c's. Why is this important? Because geometry of objects considered to be real require a valid real geometric basis and if one can not be illuminated and illustrated then the geometry being posited is not real either. The geometry may be logically correct, but it is not real. By that I mean it is virtual. We might, and often do, fully encapsulate such geometries and they deliver logically correct results, but they do not close to unification and neither can they employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in a given reference frame.

You might stammer and say that we have been to the moon and back that we used geometry to accomplish that! We yes we did go, yes we used logically correct geometry to accomplish that goal. Even to the extent that we measured the time dilation of the astronauts who made that trip confirming the logical correctness of our thinking! However, none of that thinking, those results, or any of that data could close to unification. The reason is simple. The EIM on which they were based could not close to unification, nor will it ever. The reason is will never close is that the core constructs of that EIM preclude unification and they preclude the use of a common geometric basis point. Those EIMs employ the spacetime construct. That results in the logial manifestation of the spacetime-mass interface and nothing real can transit that interface without first conversion to energy thus precluding the use of a common geometric basis point. What you have to do in order to conduct an experiment or perform some action based on such an EIM is to completely ignore the fact that the common geometric basis can not be deployed here. We can do this by scaling up our focus to higher ordered abstractions and simply ignore that the underlying details can not connect across that interface. In affect when we went to the moon that's exactly what we did in accomplishing that feat. The same is true of the Manhattan Project or any of the experiments documented in the User Library.

Can All Reference Frames be Fully Coupled?

This means that all real objects and all forces on everything in the reference frame are fully coupled with everything real in the frame across all scales. Traditionally this has been the litmus test for unification and was pointed out by Stephen Hawking among others. EIMs which manifest the spacetime-mass interface will find this impossible to accomplish exactly because nothing real can transit that interface. The Emergence Model does accomplish full coupling exactly because it does not employ that interface in any construct. The Emergence Model has a fundamentally different derivation than does M1, M2, or M3. Consequently it does not fall prey to the same types of problems.


Shop Now!


%d bloggers like this: