Supervenience

Supervenience

Elegant Reasonism Supervenience

Philosophically, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. Elegant Reasonism mode shifts supervenience traditional discussions of this philosophical field of study into full alignment with the unified Universe. In one sense Elegant Reasonism throws a monkey wrench into the middle of traditional discussions exactly because such formulations make the predicate assumption that they are working directly with reality rather than a simple human perception of reality (e.g. essentially they are committing Langer Epistemology Errors). If the predicate EIM establishing the parameters of A and B below do not close to unification then the entire discussion must be set aside as a logical problem to be mode shifted. The assumption being made above is that the human being is physically capable of perceiving and discerning 100% of the detail sets associated with the domain of discourse under investigation and that assumption is patently false. The Elegant Reasonism framework presents the necessary structure to bring the supervenience discussion and philosophy into full congruence with the unified Universe. Centrally at issue is that EIMs fully establish fundamental interpretive context. When that context is in flux EIM to EIM we must then follow the Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow and the Decision Checkpoint Flowchart to fully enable mode shifting in order to gain full compliance relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Supervenience, as a philosophy, demands manifestation by the unified Universe and not some confused subset.

In the contemporary literature, there are two primary (and non-equivalent) formulations of supervenience (for both definitions let A and B be sets of properties).

(1) A-properties supervene on B-properties if and only if all things that are B-indiscernible are A-indiscernible. Formally:

 

  • ∀ x ∀ y ( ∀ X ∈ B ( X x ↔ X y ) → ∀ Y ∈ A ( Y x ↔ Y y ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x\forall y(\forall X_{\in B}(Xx\leftrightarrow Xy)\rightarrow \forall Y_{\in A}(Yx\leftrightarrow Yy))}

(2) A-properties supervene on B-properties if and only if anything that has an A-property has some B-property such that anything that has that B-property also has that A-property. Formally:

  • ∀ x ∀ X ∈ A ( X x → ∃ Y ∈ B ( Y x ∧ ∀ y ( Y y → X y ) ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x\forall X_{\in A}(Xx\rightarrow \exists Y_{\in B}(Yx\land \forall y(Yy\rightarrow Xy)))}

For example, if one lets A be a set of mental properties, lets B be a set of physical properties, and chooses a domain of discourse consisting of persons, then (1) says that any two persons who are physically indiscernible are mentally indiscernible, and (2) says that any person who has a mental property has some physical property such that any person with that physical property has that mental property.

Some points of clarification: first, the definitions above involve quantification over properties and hence higher-order logic. Second, in (1), expressions of the form ( ∀ X ( X x ↔ X y ) ) {\displaystyle (\forall X(Xx\leftrightarrow Xy))} capture the concept of sharing all properties, or being indiscernible with respect to a set of properties. Thus, (1) can be understood more intuitively as the claim that all objects that are indiscernible with respect to a base set of properties are indiscernible with respect to a supervenient set of properties, or, as it is also sometimes said, that B-twins are A-twins. Finally, supervenience claims typically involve some modal force, however, the way that modal force is specified depends on which more specific variety of supervenience one decides upon (see below).

(1) and (2) are sometimes called “schemata” because they do not correspond to actual supervenience relations until the sets of properties A and B, the domain of entities to which those properties apply, and a modal force have been specified. For modal forms of supervenience, the modal strength of the relation is usually taken to be a parameter (that is, the possible worlds appealed to may be physically possible, logically possible, etc.). Also, note that in the early literature properties were not always central, and there remain some who prefer to frame the relation in terms of predicates, facts, or entities instead, for example.

NOTE: This page is under heavy development and constitutes a placeholder page that will extend and elaborate as time permits on this topic. Our intention is to formalize Elegant Reasonism Supervenience.

Mode Shifting Supervenience

The traditional philosophical assumption historically made relative to and respective of supervenience is that fundamental foundational context is static for all parties considering it. We generally assume that all parties can perceive and engage all factors under consideration. It never dawned us that some factors may be beyond the threshold of perception and therefore never engaged exactly because we didn’t know they existed. A simplex characterization might be that we did not engage them because we did not know to look for them. The nasty culprit here is compartmentalization resulting from commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Commission of such errors is a fatal epistemological error for all the reasons Susanne K Langer articulates in the body of her work. Insideously they also obfuscate the fact that commission has been made. In essence they trick us into thinking we are dealing directly with reality when in fact we are dealing with abstractions of it.

Consider rhetorically set theory across the various EIMs. The constructs representing real objects vs logical constructs changes EIM to EIM. Watch Richard Feynman give this lecture on knowing vs understanding around 1950. Consider the necessary framework and philosophical framework needed in order to make the appropriate determinations about theory A or B.

 

What if you were now able to consider whether the basis of each theory closed relative to unification or not? Consider the degree to which they complied with the realm of c’s herein. What do those theories look like under Elegant Reasonism’s scrutiny.

Logic Works Best With Identified Elements

The requirements of unification demand an integration of everything real. Rhetorically the question then becomes is it possible for humanity to perceive 100% of those elements? The answer to that question is no and for the same reasons you can not see the air you breathe. There are real constructs which must be deduced scientifically, but there are other factors exacerbating and obfuscating that quest. One such factor are Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Another is illuminated by recognition of logically correct modeling awareness. Knowing that Albert Einstein was 100% logically correct affords us the ability to recognize the strategic clue needed to perceive unification when we are enabled by the utility process, framework of Elegant Reasonism which empowers an epistemology unlike any other. Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism integrates traditional epistemologies, like empiricism, but statistically weights them relative to and respective of their ability to discern the unified Universe.

Mode shifting known knowns, known unknowns, and working to illuminate potential unknown unknowns, we must also explore mode shifted answers to the standard root cause analysis questions in order to illuminate as many elements as possible in the fully compliant context of the unified Universe. One of the foundations of communications is a common context and EIMs change that. The question then becomes how to manifest a utility process that can accommodate such circumstances philosophically and still remain true to the truth, goals and objectives. Part of that answer lies with the source of truth sought. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Any other truth is not based on this epistemology.

Part of the issue here is not what The Emergence Model does do, it is what status quo thinking can not do and why that is true. If the core constructs and elements of encapsulated status quo thinking can not close to unification exactly because they were not designed for that, then there is a problem. That problem can simplexly be described as the inability to perceive the necessary elements necessary to engage the unified Universe. The issue is in essence obfuscated. It does not matter how much logic one leverages against that. Only by inventorying abstractions employed by all EIMs relative to and respective of the set of Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) and the various EIMs employed in a given investigation within an effective 2D Articulation Table/Layer can we begin to perceive the various issues. We must then subject all of that to intense analytical scrutiny.

Mode Shifting Supervenience

Mode Shifting supervenience then is essentially executing the proper logic necessary in order to effectively navigate the Elegant Reasonism Process & Methods.  Working these various issues in context of supervenience then we begin to see something of different areas of focus which are driven by encapsulation requirements not just as a function of modeling but the analytical layers. Some layers are constrained by the EIMs, others by POI/N, still others either vertically, horizontally or even free form analytics layer purpose by purpose.

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Philosophy #Supervenience #Ontology #Epistemology #Axiology #Science