SolREI, Inc.

A strategic sustainability company

TE-0004

something vs nothing

Something vs Nothing

NOTE: This and all thought experiments are subject to the critical situationally aware thinking required in order to establish vital context necessary to properly mode shift this discussion. 

Preimise

This thought experiment is difficult for many to comprehend. We were in that proverbial camp. So many words imply a container and therefore must eliminate themselves from descriptive characterization which may be used in written language to articulate the concepts involved.  ‘Nothing’ can not influence ‘something’.  Dimensionless nothing has no basis. Philosophically this thought experiment is an important predicate entering all sciences because it gets one to consider the interface between the two concepts. Does that interface exist? What is the nature of that interface? It also forces some rather provocative contemplation relative to traditional epistemologies. Ultimately this thought experiment led us to the cogent description for M5 but that took many years. It was anything but a quick journey and neither was it easy. In hindsight this thought experiment leads to significant guidance for subsequent deliberations in critically situationally aware thinking, acting as litmus to those discussions. Fundamentally it leads to proposition 0025 because of the fourth sentence here. We are then forced to recognize proposition 0017 for the same reasons. Under M5, that proposition leads to proposition 0010. If these propositions seem numbered out of logical sequence they are, but only because of how they wound up being enumerated within the body of the original systems review notes (software). Proposition 0010 ultimately leads to The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. All of which proposition 0149 reinforces. Proposition 0010 is essentially the emergence vector and proposition 0149 is essentially the convergence vector both along the entanglement gradient but in opposite directions. And the point to this preamble has to do with experiments into all of this relative to discussions of philosophy and science. The critical insight here is that if properties do not emerge until configurations of architectural mass are produced as a function of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance then individual MBPs are not discernible to instruments designed to perceive only those higher ordered constructs. A new class of instruments is required in order to perform investigations to those levels. And all of this is the reason this particular thought experiment is of such immense importance, because philosophy is required in order to set up the science. We must then ask ourselves about the veracity of existing experiments and the conclusions they assert. Do those conclusions close to unification or do they not? That question is essentially the same question being asked right here in this thought experiment. Something vs nothing: is that even a valid comparison? We thought it was at least an important philosophical discussion to entertain. Therein lay another lesson about not forgetting the philosophical roots of science. That lesson is reinforced by the unified Universe. See press release: Unification Accomplished.

The premise that nothing is exactly that, implies a most basic of all somethings real and then the discussion is ‘what does that intrinsic nature look like?’ Our original systems review suggested something we chose to call Most Basic Particles (MBPs). At the most basic level this thought experiment is the discussion of a Local Frame of reference larger than a single real something (e.g. some real object) within that Local Frame and then the medium between that real object and the frame of reference boarders. The reference frame volume should be reasonably large enough to fundamentally establish these conditions.

Predicate Implications

Immediately we are faced with defining what is and is not real in this scenario. That is to say the core constructs of every EIM manifesting those constructs must have them quantified and defined consistent with Elegant Reasonism Rules. You may use our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent, but they must all be quantified and codified prior to use.

SolREI Standard Problem Framework

SolREI uses a standardized framework for problem articulation.

Problem Statement

TE-0001 asks a question which can not technically exist under some EIMs (e.g. M1, M2, & M3) but colloquial language commonly in use implies that those conditions do exist nor do those individuals generally comprehend implications from commission of Langer Epistemology Errors.

Challenge

Individuals need to be presented materials which force them to wrestle and manage their own paradigm shifts, otherwise new idea rejection is common (e.g. not invented here syndrome). The challenge then is not to allow introduction of concepts into a critically situationally aware discussion (and the thinking behind it) which do not exist relative to the question being asked: in this case which requires the concept of ‘nothing’ to exist (and where in those problem EIMs it does not).

Alternatives

  1. Let sleeping dogs lay.
  2. Publish relevant materials for open review.
  3. Integrate concepts into an interactive, openly engaged website, facilitating concept normalization at the consumer’s will to understand.

Choice

3

Rationale

  1. Our business model and purpose engages civilization to make a difference and for that reason option one is a non-starter.
  2. SolREI Publishing developed and released those materials into the marketplace between 2006-2012 and they were ignored. ISBNs were subsequently removed from availability and are now generally considered obsolete. (See Coffee Mug: Obsolete Book Covers.)
  3. Option 3 is the most sound choice but it will be a massive amount of work in every conceivable regard. The company will have to work to bring alive the body of work behind Elegant Reasonism in order to articulate even this seemingly simple thought experiment. Those individuals entrenched in status quo positions are generally not aware of Langer Epistemology Erorrs much less whether or not they are committing them. Only by full compliance establishing vital context can this be properly articulated with full implications realized. Hence the note at the top of this page.

Next Steps

  1. Bring the website online. DONE
  2. Work to integrate the body of work resulting from the original systems review into the content of the website. IN PROGRESS
  3. Establish a licensing strategy for the strategic asset that maximizes consumer level learning at no cost to them and supports commercial application effectively.  IP STRATEGY COMPLETED BASELINE ERGUL AND ERCUL LICENSING VEHICLES INTENDED TO SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT.
  4. Implement via company website. IN PROGRESS

Owners

SolREI INC is working to articulate these issues to civilization at large.

Mode Shifting TE-0004

The concept of ‘nothing’ can not exist in any EIM asserting that spacetime as a real construct (e.g. M1, M2, & M3) by the very definitions of their relative and respective core constructs. Terminology such as void, empty, and other synonyms imply a container that does not exist and therefore must be avoided in the discussion. If such a container did exist then that too would constitute a real object relevant and required to be included within the Local Frame under discussion. The Emergence Model EIMs (e.g. M5 & M6) employ a single Most Basic Particle (MBP) science can define and then the discussion of the medium in which that particle resides. Thought experiment 33: Single Particle In a Local Frame is focused on the particle in the frame rather than the distinction between it and nothing discussed here. The fundamental notion here is that this single particle is the ‘something’ which we describe as the material of which all other things in the Universe1 are constructed and the medium is ‘nothing’. It is the classic ‘something’ vs ‘nothing’ discussion.

Something Just Is

The medium, that is to say the ‘nothing’ in this thought experiment, cannot have character or we have not properly defined the experiment. 100% of any character or attribute we might apply to anything in this scenario must be applied to the something that is in the frame and in this case that something is the single particle that fills the definition and role of being the Most Basic Particle science can define. Because no basis point may be affixed to “nothing” it really isn’t correct to say that the particle is “in” nothing. The existence of something here is a state of being manifesting the Most Basic Particle. The particle is just there and there is nothing around it.

Mode Shifting Something vs Nothing

(M1) The very first thing we need to recognize is that “spacetime” is a logical construct of Einstein‘s. He created it because, in his own words, “it solved certain problems.” By creating a “logical” geometry and then use it to have the discussions he did was absolutely brilliant. However, now we recognize it is a logical geometry exactly because it does not have a real geometric basis point. The spacetime construct is not ‘real’. Believing spacetime is a real physical construct herein constitutes a Langer Epistemology Error and a Sigma Defect. At the time they did not understand distinctions in Systems Engineering: Logical vs Physical Systems, much less Logic Traps (p 61). What it means is that the logic holds and it holds through many experiments. None of which proves that the construct is real; rather that they prove the stability of the logic used and there is a distinction between these points. You can have something that is logically correct and physically different.

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.

That’s what we have here. spacetime is a “logical” construct and it has been since its inception. Only when we realize the implications stemming from Concept 0289: Mass in the context of Table 3: Architecture & Structure Examples do these distinctions become recognizable. Clarity holistically comes when we understand the issues discussed in Mass and that the equation best fitting Einstein’s theories is Concept 0293: Rest Energy Mass Equivalence for all the reasons stated in that section. Then recognizing the logic behind Thought Experiment 0012: Hawking Radiation & The Big Bang and in recognition of On The Nature of Space (now obsolete). However, with this revelation are the implications stemming from the holistic set of propositions posited here.

(M5) Philosophically under The Emergence Model everything real is a manifestation resulting from The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configuring MBPs into architectural mass generally construed to follow Knot Theory.  Something, in that context, can be considered any such architectural mass from individual MBPs to any configuration of them along the Entanglement Gradient up to and including the most massive Black Hole known to science. The term ‘space’ is defined here as dimensionless nothing. Space, by definition, under this EIM has no container, substance, dimension, or content. It is completely irrelevant in every characterization of any construct. Something being some configuration architectural mass made manifest by the intrinsic nature of MBPs is the only consideration in every real construct. Time is an action displacement index here made manifest by the intrinsic actions of architectural mass interacting in some frame (e.g. Event Frame or Local Frame).

P3.9 Developing the Treatise

The concept of nothing under status quo thinking is non-sequitur in as much as spacetime under those EIMs must be considered a real construct and it is therefore not ‘nothing’. Defining space as dimensionless nothing under The Emergence Model creates the condition that nothing is defined as the absence of all real something’s means that we can at least talk about there being nothing present in that Local Frame other than the real something of focus and concern here in TE-0004. The now obsolete paper On The Nature of Space released previously by SolREI Publishing discussed many of the clues and logic artifacts leading to these conclusions.

Executive Summary

What is interesting about this thought experiment relative to the cogent description of M5 was unexpected by us, maybe it should not have been but it was. The preamble here led us into contemplation about the nature of the relationship between philosophy and science spanning all scales across the entanglement gradient. What was unexpected was that the holistic precipice attained at the conclusion of taking our original systems review through the Elegant Reasonism utility process employing the analytic framework to itself would all dove tail resulting in unification. Unification was not our original goal or objective. We were looking into impact dynamics across the Sol System. Because it was not what we were looking for we didn’t even realize we had accomplished unification until years after we did it, and we conducted the systems review that produced it. There too is a lesson that the enabling process is required in order to discern and enage the intrinsic nature involved. All of this fundamentally redefines what ‘integration’ means. Unification of everything real demands a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse, in fact it requires them all. There are way too many obfuscating factors for ordinary systems or individuals (e.g. mere mortals). Many mode shifted insights emerge discussed In Unification’s Wake, part 05: Business Impact. And therein too lay a reinforcement of the multidisciplinary requirements of all of this pointed out in the preamble above. We must depend on the process to enable perception of unification if only because no single detail set within any given domain of discourse can possible know all that is real. Any assertion to the contrary is an illusion if not outright fallacy. Ironically Elegant Reasonism as an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe has yet another surprising element dovetailing into this mix. It turns out that when we affect paradigm shifts associated with a particular set of paradigms of interest/nature (POI/N) the synaptic patterns within our physiological make up of our central nervous systems (CNS) change their alignments. The patterns connect memories associated with recall and consolidation within the brain across all Brodmann Areas. These ‘shifts’ constitute what we call Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). The irony in all of this is that the unified Universe has provided a way for our physiology to be self-clarifying through these processes. And that is truly profound if not epic. Almost as astounding is that 100% of all these various insights are a derivative of this thought experiment being processed through Elegant Reasonism led to Unification being Accomplished. What is more important than what we’ve done, is where we take this, what we do with this, when people are ready to understand, and how we handle ourselves globally within civilization we have created. We strongly encourage everyone to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally with great empathy and compassion.

 

 

Shop Now!



 


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #EventFrame #Event #LocalFrame #IntertialReferenceFrame #Relativity #Space
Post Views: 16

You missed

A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality Open Letter Public Press Release

@I00005

May 30, 2023 Charles McGowen
A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality

@I00004

May 22, 2023 Charles McGowen
A Case in Point Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality News

@I00003

May 18, 2023 Charles McGowen
Article Elegant Reasonism Patent Pending 16405134 Excellence and Quality News Open Letter Public Press Release

WhyF

May 12, 2023 Charles McGowen