PDCF_Instructions

Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart Instructions

The decision checkpoints are generally construed to have the following relationships and flow positions. While they are not necessarily required to follow this path, this is the path one generally winds up following naturally executing the Generalized Process Flow. One enters the flow in the top left of the image below with the goal and objective of achieving development of a fully compliant Treatise in the lower right. The steps along the way are linked in the outline below.

Recognition Phase

The recognition phase is where problems and challenges are first recognized. Many people do not comprehend implications stemming from the inability to accomplish unification. They think there is nothing wrong with not being able to perceive the unified Universe. Many are complacent with the familial surroundings of status quo thinking. Investigators should be prepared to deal with the stages of grief associated with those vested in the successes accomplished by institutionalized thinking. By all measures that thinking is the most successful model in the human history, but we can not allow that success to blind us to the realities required in order to perceive and engage the unified Universe.

Historical Perspectives

We have found it useful to engage historical materials in the public domain in order to make sure an authors ideas are accurately represented. One example, which candidly caught us by surprise, is the distinction between M1 and M2. Everyone usually attributes modern thinking to Einstein and while modern thinking is a derivative of that it is also true that he did not believe the way modern physics is taught. Modern science teaches mass as a variant construct. Einstein believed it to be invariant. The variant belief is traced back to work done by Wolfgang Pauli and not Einstein. Dr. Lev B Okun details that history in his article: The Concept of Mass. These stories and a great deal more are articulated via links on our Acknowledgements page and elsewhere herein.

Unified Thinking

Circa 2021, and earlier, almost no one anywhere on Earth was thinking in a manner capable of reconciling the quest for unification. An array of challenges must be recognized. Unification demands a tapestry a great deal larger than any single discipline of science. Indeed we must recognize that unification must be a philosophical predicate priority entering science, else we run the risk of not seeing the forest for the trees. The implication of that risk is believing that the trees before us are isotropic across a diverse forest. Obviously that is not the case.

Abstraction Inventory

Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. That tendency increases with layers of abstractions built upon one another. Replicate of fading issues enter into paradigm stacks of such abstractions to the point that lower ordered details are completely obfuscated. Elegant Reasonism demands all abstractions be inventoried and accounted for in all relationships. If required we must be able to account for the smallest construct as a constituent within the largest constructs know to a given EIM.

Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs)

LEEs occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality and there are any number of ways this may manifest as a fatal epistemological flaw and error in thinking and judgement. Susanne K Langer, first noted these errors in 1948. Also see LEEs FAQs.

Illumination Phase

The illumination phase is where we take the abstraction inventory and populate Translation Matrices in order to enable mode shifting. Mode shifting is required in order to properly conduct analysis and development of a fully compliant Treatise in alignment with the unified Universe.

Enabling Mode Shifting: Translation Matrices

At first enabling these capabilities will seem non-sequitur and likely strange. One aspect, that takes some getting used to, is that patterns associated with various paradigms of interest/nature are restricted and constrained by the encapsulation process of an EIM. Traditionally we expect to be able to instantly characterize a new idea in context of what we think we already know, and this insight is counter intuitive to that expectation. Patterns are generally encapsulated.

The Emergence Model

The Emergence Model ultimately culminated from Thought Experiment 4: Something vs Nothing. The concept of 'nothing' does not exist within status quo thinking because energy warps spacetime into manifolds of mass (according to that way of thinking). This presents a problem for those core constructs in the form of the interface between spacetime & mass exactly because nothing real can transition that interface. Critical situational awareness thinking must conclude that EIMs employing those constructs are logical in nature, despite their resounding successes.

Because logical constructs are defined with precision of definitions we tend to employ them more often than physical views because there is quite often more than one physical manner to get the same logical result. Also, because R&D associated with architectures of mass is nascent, we almost never use the physical view at this stage of maturity of these models. Despite maturity shortcomings enough has been done that early systems reviews have created concept sieves such that paradigms of nature/interest are illuminated and illustrated as simultaneously true with status quo thinking and tradition, with the single exception that The Emergence Model, closes to unification and those traditional models can not accomplish that feat. Therefore, circa 2021, the preferred fully compliant EIM is The Emergence Model.

M5

The Emergence Model's logical view is labeled M5. M5 is enabled by M6, but must simultaneously make manifest paradigms of interest/nature which are true under traditional EIMs.

M6

The Emergence Model's physical view is labeled M6. M6 must support and otherwise enable M5.

Analysis Phase

Once basic mode shifting capabilities are empowered and otherwise enabled in Translation Matrices (e.g. the 2D Articulation Layer) we can begin working with the analytical stack (e.g. deeper layers).

Compliance

Compliance doesn't just mean following the direct rules of Elegant Reasonism, it means compliance across the Realm of C's and it means complying with industry standards which may be imposed by a given investigation or systems review by global enterprise or as needed to participate in the global economy.

 

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

 

Realm of C's

There exist a list of word used in business planning circles, all of which start with the letter 'c' (ironically) and which help to assure the thinking associated with a given enterprises planning. Herein we have increased that list to include 'closure' (e.g. closure to unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science). This enhances the scientific method and increases both rigor and discipline associated with it.

Developing a Fully Compliant Treatise

Development of any Treatise is an exercise that is in holistic context of Elegant Reasonism.

The Fully Compliant Treatise

A fully compliant Treatise may be held up at any time against the unified Truth and its assertions, ideas, and content will be illuminated and illustrated by the actual unified Universe which is always held litmus.

 

Shop Now!

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Philosophy #Epistemology #Science #EIM #LangerEpistemologyErrors #LEEs #Logic

 

%d bloggers like this: