Logic Artifacts

Logical Fallacies

EIM Remaining Incongruities are Logic Artifacts

There is perhaps no greater trigger for LEEs Empiricism Traps than logic artifacts made manifest by commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). These types of logic artifacts are insidious exactly because they are not recognized because you are 1) Blinded by the Success of not seeing them and 2) have a belief system reinforced by Central Nervous System (CNS) derived abstractions.  Realizing that Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) establish fundamental, foundational in fact, context; we must then recognize that any puzzling clue or incongruity between what is predicted by that EIM and the unified Universe. We must hold litmus the unified Universe else we risk commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Logical assertions associated with a particular EIM which does not, or can not, close to unification represents a potential Sigma Defect in terms of Six Sigma calculations (aka Metrics).

Not until you have the skills necessary to conversationally mode shift a particular set of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) or entire Concept Sieves. such as: EMCS01 (e.g. Original Systems Review), EMCS02 (e.g. Physical Properties), or EMCS03 (e.g. Thermodynamics), will you see these issues dynamically and in-situ. Anyone presenting, for example, anything as ‘truth’ but related to a concept of the multiverse (which is a logic artifact derived from M1 and M2) does not understand the implication of LEE commission. Hold their assertions with great skepticism. In our humble opinion, one of the most awe inspiring aspects of Elegant Reasonism is its ability to illuminate to illustration how different EIMs manifest logic artifacts within various domains of discourse or their constituent detail sets. Again the multiverse is such an example. That construct is a product of the inability of neither M1 nor M2 being able to employ a common geometric basis point. Many individuals rationalize away that problem and in that act, present a clue to the rest of us about the logical nature of the discussion being undertaken in that conversation.

Logic artifacts are a product of the EIM making them manifest. Do not expect the same artifact to exist in every EIM. Remember relationships and patterns change EIM to EIM and as those aspects of those various EIMs change so too do relationships of constructs to each other. It is for that reason that the technological framework of Elegant Reasonism shifts focus as you rigorously work down the analytic stack. At the top of that stack the focus is on enabling mode shifting and the focus is on table cell intersection between POI/Ns and each of the EIMs employed by an investigation. Moving down the stack analytics become columnar or row centric, usually before more heterogeneous analytics are employed. Once that is established Bayesian analytics can be employed by the investigators etc. and on through the framework.

Logic Artifacts Are A Function of EIM Context

This is especially true of EIMs that can not, or do not, close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Such EIMs usually very rapidly ensnare people within LEEs Empiricism Trap. There is a presumption in Empirical Science that we are working with reality and not abstractions of it, even though we use abstractions in that effort every day. What is not recognized are the implications of LEE commission. Failing to recognize these types of errors almost always triggers LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Relationships Change EIM to EIM

We only need compare M1 to M2 and discuss inertia, momentum, and other factor differences in context of how we treat mass to develop these assertions to full illumination and illustration. The same might be true exploring an effort to mode shift the question “Why are Newton’s laws true?”, between M1, M2, and M5. We have had that discussion elsewhere and so will not repeat it here. The point here is that as the various relationships and patterns change EIM to EIM so to do the set of expected logic artifacts. One investigative objective should be to minimize or completely eliminate them to the extent possible.

Natural Artifacts

Natural artifacts may arise in the form of an object that is out of place. BX442 and GLASS-z12 are astronomical examples. Much harder to discern are subjects like economics but illustrated by Ludwig von Mises‘ book Human Action – A Treatise on Economics. Remember, unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real. That is a requirement delivered by the unified Universe, not our little set of Musketeers. Key in conversational dynamics is understanding the source of truth for any given assertion. Elegant Reasonism will always source its truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, and there is a solid reason for that as you will see in the implications of simultaneous truths discussed below.

  • Inability to employ a common real geometric basis point (if you can not employ a real geometric basis poing for all real objects instantiated by geometry then the geometry you promulgate is logical not real)
  • Inability to fully couple all reference frames internally as well as between each other and ultimately to the unified Universe as a holistic whole
  • Reconciling concepts like cosmological rapid expansion with infinite compression relative to black hole growth while conforming to the realm of c’s (mode shifting all this dismantled the inflationary theory)
  • Comprehensive inventory of abstractions, EIM by EIM, within a tool like our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent inclusive of all POI/Ns employed by any given investigation consistent with the process

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 in a fully compliant context. 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!