Unification Achieved

What became the quest to accomplish unification did not begin with that objective. The questions simply kept piling up until the reasons science could not be unified were rendered explicit. That is to say until we answered that question we could not answer the questions concerning our original quest. We were therefore placed in a position of having to pursue unification and it was not something Charles C McGowen wanted or desired. McGowen was simply pushed into the role by circumstances beyond his control. When the project began its epicenter involved astrophysics. It took years to realize that accomplishing unification was a much larger tapestry than any individual discipline of science.

White Papers

Elegant Reasonism White Paper

The Emergence Model White Paper

History

Circa 2005 McGowen was working on an idle project dealing with astrophysics. Einstein‘s papers were scattered across his desk where he had been studying relationships with celestial mechanics. It is worthy to note that he had left a fortune 50 position in corporate America to care for his then elderly mother. That is a transition not for the feint of heart and there is likely a story there as well. Here though it explains how a type A person who decades earlier had studied aerospace engineering, spent more than two decades in the information technology industry suddenly found himself with considerable time on his hands. Transitioning to real estate and becoming both a Realtor and a Mortgage Broker did not fill his time or interests. In any event this project was interested him and what it was is really not relevant here. That those papers were on his desk is. Standing from his office chair still reading one of those papers he muttered “that makes sense” and in that instant was the single inspirational moment ultimately culminating in this website. For in that instant McGowen froze. His information science background brought instant recognition of the implications of a logically correct view on a physically different system meant. He understood that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different.

If predominant thinking was ‘only’ logically correct meant two things. First it meant that there had to be an ability to articulate other also logically correct views on the same physical system that was reality. Second it meant that just about everyone else on Earth had mistakenly believed they were working directly with that physical system rather than the logical view of it. How to explain that to people whose entire experience in life had erroneously taught them the mistake was truth. So right then the decision was made to under take the systems review to sort all that out. That systems review included earlier parts of the project that had begun in 2004 up to this point and ultimately culminated with the USPTO filing on May 7th, 2019 when Patent Pending 16405134 was granted by the USPTO on what became Elegant Reasonism.

The revelation concerning the intrinsically logical nature of predominant thinking was a liberating moment in the sense that it meant there might be other also logically correct models. That moment in 2005 did not set out on a quest to unify anything. It simply began as a test to see if another model could be developed, but it also meant that predominant thinking had to be explained. The question was how to do that. A decade earlier McGowen had been working at IBM and was part of the Worldwide OS/2 Brand Management team. He had been assigned OS/2 Warp as a project in 1994 where it was explained that no one was sure if it was possible to do but management wanted to try to integrate the Internet into the product. Holistically the team performed several small miracles and in 100 days delivered the product in 80+ countries, 22+ languages, and integrated it with what then was the IBM Global Network. That latter piece is directly germane to this story because it involved a piece of technology installed on ISP connection servers called ‘translation tables’. Translation tables convert human readable URL addresses into their machine addresses out on the network. That’s how your web browser knows where to send its requests. Exactly because of this experience McGowen instantly knew he had to create a new piece of technology analogous to those tables translating Internet addresses, except here the technology would have to translate paradigms of interest from one interpretive model of the Universe into another such model and back again. And that is where Translation Matrices came from.

There is another piece of this whole puzzle and it came in a meeting with some of the folks in the image to the right (McGowen is in the back right corner). McGowen made an off-handed comment about a ‘physical’ device driver for the system and the development team leader in that meeting that day was Jack Lloyd. He paused the meeting to explain to me (McGowen) distinctions on logical views of physical systems. It was a memorable moment (for me). These people to McGowen are family and will forever remain so. We did the impossible so many times I lost count. Love you guys! That was a once in a lifetime team and am deeply honored to have been a small part of it. Alas I digress. Systems Engineering was a vital piece of all this as well because something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. That single salient point is lost on tens of thousands of people. That single point explains 100% of experimental data generated since 1900 exactly because predominant thinking was mired in a logical view (M1 or M2) of a physical system (reality). The mistake that had been made was believing the former was the latter. McGowen refused to believe he was the first to recognize that problem.

Thankfully he was not the first to recognize the problem, Susanne K Langer was the first in 1948 and Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) are named in her honor. LEEs occur when humans fail to recognize that our physiology instantly furnishes our brains with abstractions in order to relate to the real world around us and we mistake those abstractions for that real world. When we couple LEEs with Systems Engineering and then holistically marry those practices, processes, and concepts with the Translation Matrices technology and then immerse it all in what is now the Elegant Reasonism framework we have unprecedented power to perceive and engage the unified Universe. Along this journey Event Frames were developed. The concept of Perimeters finished out what inspired this whole endeavor. The systems review actually accomplished unification but it was not realized for almost three years because of all the obfuscation and confusing messages.

Most Basic Particles or (MBPs) were not the first constructs created during the 2004-2019 systems review project rather they developed as a function of Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing and the requirement from unification to manifest a common geometric basis point. There was lots of whiteboard work and 2D Articulation Layers created, erased, and rebuilt during those early days. What you see here is only the merest glimpse of the work conducted.

Implications of M1‘s Logical Nature

What is needed is an international committee to sit down, quantify, and codify what constitutes the official definitions for the models recognized by Elegant Reasonism. McGowen knows what he looked at but he is not the rest of the world nor does he speak for the rest of the world. What we are doing here is sharing as much of what was done and looked at for consideration and contemplation by civilization. Once the holistic issues from the above discussions are recognized we then are faced with the implications and they are both broad and deep relative to previous LEEs made. The other side of that proverbial coin are all the positive implications and there are many, Elegant Reasonism being one of them.

Recognizing M1 as a logical model liberates the mind for contemplation never before fathomed. Incongruences are instantly reconciled because they no longer need reconciliation. What they need are labels stating them as logic artifacts arising due to that logically correct model’s intrinsic nature and such logic artifacts constitute sigma defects in that model. Elegant Reasonism is required to employ a pluralistic approach to the use of such models and calculates sigma defects within each model and then holistically for all Translation Matrices used developing a given Treatise.

Understanding Historical Experiments & Results

It is critical and vital that learners here recognize that logically correct experiments, conducted in a logically correct manner, immersed in a logically correct encapsulated interpretive model (of the Universe), will produce logically correct results AND that has absolutely nothing to do necessarily with the actual real unified Universe except to prove the logical correctness (e.g. context) of the particular investigation performed. Does that mean those experiments were ‘wrong’, of course not. Do any of those experiments ever accomplish unification? No, they don’t and they do not exactly because they were logical representations. To gain mode shifted insights into those experiments then a comprehensive systems review needs to be undertaken in the context of Elegant Reasonism. Only then will the distinctions and insights be illuminated not just on what was accomplished by that original experiment but the insights that were missed entirely because the original experiment was immersed and otherwise ensnared in the logic trap that is M1 or M2.

Symmetry can be explained as a function of Emergence Model Convergence. The LIGO experiments are not waves of spacetime but gravitons. The inflationary theory is completely dismantled because The Emergence Model redefines space and does not employ the spacetime construct. However, to comprehend these issues they must be mode shifted. None of them can be explained from the status quo point of view. Mode shifting requires holistic paradigm shifts and the technology to do that we call Translation Matrices and they are employed across Elegant Reasonism’s three primary phases: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis all driving toward a fully compliant Treatise.

What Does Unification Mean?

From a science perspective it means being able employ every discipline almost simultaneously. Geometry, Chemistry, Physics, and others, all blend seamlessly. It means all fundamental forces are described relative to one another and all reference frames, a geometric construct, may reference the same common geometric basis point in order to describe all real objects. It means being able to describe the Universe from before, during, and after the Big Bang. Unification is bigger than any single discipline of science. Being able to achieve unification does not just unify a measured discipline of science, it brings together all of philosophy which includes all of science. We don’t just create new insights into science, we deliver a framework that cradles philosophy such that it nurtures science and vice versa. The nature of this accomplishment is not lost on us. We get it.

Unification demands the capability to reflect the integration of everything real. ~ Charles C McGowen

Unification Factors

Unification demands rigor and discipline which status quo thinking can not deliver:

• Holistically reflect the unified Universe across the entire entanglement gradient in both convergent scale vectors (e.g. large to small) and emergent scale vectors (e.g. small to large)
• Employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in all reference frames
• Fully couple all fundamental forces to all real objects in every reference frame
• Reflect isotropically, consistent with the realm of c’s foundational factors across all scales of the entanglement gradient
• Employ industry quantification and codification consistent with ISO 9001 QMS standards
• Holistically integrate philosophy, science, ontology, axiology, and truth
• Reflect the Universe before, during, and after the Big Bang (e.g. describe the Universe ‘Bang to Bang‘)
  • This necessarily includes everything real, not just those relating to a single discipline or domain of discourse or detail set
• Practically describe relationships between everything real consistent with the realm of c’s no matter how restful
• Accomplish the above epistemologically congruent with truth as a function of the unified Universe

Most people seeking “unification of physics” are so bent on tweaking the status quo thinking that they can not see the forest for the trees. When you can describe the Universe Bang to Bang you are placed in the position of describing not just quantum mechanics to cosmology issues, but organic from inorganic, life, consciousness, biology, reconciliation of the Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox and a great deal more. Consequently we stopped saying we unified physics because the tapestry unified is a great deal larger than one discipline of science.  Ultimately Elegant Reasonism constitutes an entirely new epistemology capable of spanning scales and uniting philosophy under the rules of science where truth is a function of the unified Universe. And that is pretty epic.

Common Geometric Basis Point

The Emergence Model defines everything real as derivatives of Most Basic Particles (MBP) intrinsic nature which produces two key processes; The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by the other Severance forming configurations, generally construed to follow Knot Theory, of Architectural Mass. Such structures forming architectures inherently integrate symmetry. Because space is defined therein as it is this set of EIMs do not have traditional inhibitors precluding employment of a common geometric basis point for any configuration or set of them in any reference frame. Taken in this way and combined with other insights Event Frames can be established which contain as much or as little of the unified Universe as needed to support any investigation.

Fully Coupled Reference Frames

The M5 cogent description defines force, all force, as the work instantiated by the intrinsic action / interactions of architectural mass. Defined in this manner all forces are a function of property emergence relative to and respective of specific configurations of MBPs. All forces are therefore sourced from the same intrinsic nature and are made manifest through processes also so defined. Unification in this context comes full circle and is intrinsic even at fundamental levels within this EIM. Many scientists have long noted that being able to fully couple reference frames is a requirement for unification. We agree.

Spanning Scales Across The Entanglement Gradient

Architectural mass under The Emergence Model is generally construed to follow Knot Theory which intrinsically produces complex composites containing and combining lower ordered constituent configurations we have a natural condition for integration across all scales of the entanglement gradient as we move from low ordered complexities up the scale to higher ordered constructs. Higher ordered constituent naturally integrate lower ordered constituents. The highest ordered constructs, usually construed to mean Black Holes, inherently integrates some of the lowest ordered constructs (e.g. Gravitons) in its key character. Black holes can in that context be thought of as Graviton stars.

The Full Tapestry of Reality

Fully compliant Treatise all have one thing in common – they close to unification. What that means is that such a Treatise will have anchor points and evidence chains that link back to already established Treatise and together they holistically reflect the unified Universe. Not all relationships are intuitively obvious, many are exceedingly restful. Civilization is in need of a comprehensive systems review In Unification’s Wake. The extent to which they do not offers opportunity to increase precision, resolution, or accuracy.

The Realm of C’s

The realm of c’s emerged from industry standard business planning practices and is comprised of words like cogent, coherent, cohesive, etc and as it happens most of those words begin with the letter ‘c’. Applied herein they provide overarching guidance across Elegant Reasonism‘s processes & methods working toward fully aligned Treatise. One of those ‘c’ words is “Close” and herein means “close to unification” as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

Standards

The company is working to establish relationships with global standards organizations including but not limited to NIST, ISO, Baldrige, Accreditation Agencies, etc. These are global enterprise industry standard organizations establishing base line methods, quality, metrics, to reduce errors and improve quality. Many of the associated issues are discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact.

The Process & Methods Integrates

In hindsight unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse, detail set, or discipline because once anyone is able to describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang they are immediately confronted with a requirement to reflect the manifestation of everything real across all domains no matter how restful they may be. Elegant Reasonism is designed as an epistemology supported by an analytical framework seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

Bang to Bang

The Emergence Model mode shifts many discussions such that they are either disintermediated or completely eliminated as inhibitors, challenges, or problems. Case in point: the M1 description of the Big Bang. Setting aside for a moment the rampant commission of Langer Epistemology Errors: The known universe is larger than can be accounted for by normal velocity expansion and so scientists invented a rationalization called ‘rapid expansion’ to account for the current size of the unified Universe. Rapid Expansion is the expansion of spacetime (in M1) itself and was therefore postulated to be capable of moving faster than the speed of light. The issue with all of that is Black Holes grow and the corollary to rapid expansion is infinite compression. That growth can not reconcile infinite compression. Kill the corollary and you kill the original premise. Concatenating that story  considerably we simply note here that the Inflationary Theory unravels. We are then able to reconcile Einstein’s models, Rapidity, Hubble’s Red and Blue Shifts which holistically reframe through mode shifting the Big Bang such that we are able to describe all phenomena Bang to Bang.

Relatedness No Matter How Restful

In Unification’s Wake, Part 004: Relatedness discusses many of the relationship issues that must be addressed once you are able to describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang.

Path to Epistemology

The Path to Epistemology for Elegant Reasonism is enabled by The Emergence Model EIMs (e.g. M5 & M6), maybe because they close or it may be more due to the manner in which they close. Either way along the Entanglement Gradient organic matter is enabled through the discontinuous configurations of Knot Theory which allows for animated range of motion needed for biological systems.

Treatise

It has been our experience that Elegant Reasonism compliant Treatise all dovetail together though their relationships may be restful. What is simply amazing to us is that unification comes together holistically not just as a discipline of astrophysics. When we back up from all this and witness how it all dovetails together it staggers the imagination.

Practical Implications?

For the average person, accomplishing unification might not change much of anything, except why things are true. It would help with clarity of thought and perhaps some decision making. It might also help you keep from getting scammed by a shaman. It means no information, no signal, may be conveyed absent some real construct carrying it, and then you have to know what that real construct is exactly. If you are an engineer it means you may have to ask perhaps more questions and likely of a different sort than you are used to. In the end the consequences are likely the same. Campfires burn, chemicals interact, and nucleosynthesis transpires in the hearts of stars all just like it always has. What changes is not out there, it is within us and our thinking about those things. What happens when our thinking changes is that we perceive the realm in which we exist with more insightful ability than we ever wielded historically or traditionally.

We will explain models elsewhere, and there are seven recognized, but if M1 is simultaneously logically correct and true with M5, then what possible difference could it make to anything anyone works on? One simplex answer is that it depends on the depth of perception one wishes going through life. It depends on whether or not knowing that the Earth is a sphere and not flat matters to you. If you sail in a sailboat that matters because you won’t get where you want to go if you don’t recognize that fact.

There are quests that emerge as a function of M1 that are essentially red herrings. The benefit perceived from such things turn out to be elusive and almost mystical in nature. Those studying them have great difficulty explaining why their results are not more consistent. The answer is that they are boxing shadows or looking for a penny in the corner of a round room. Being able to discern that fact holds some modicum of value. Not wasting valuable resources on illusory concepts probably has some value. Especially if those investments are in the billions of dollars.

Framework for Communications

There is a bit of a challenge because everyone is comfortable with what it is they think they know. That provides some familial degree of communicative capability for peer reviews, publication of papers, articles, and the like. What absolutely no one expect was for all of that to be mode shifted out from under our feet. Elegant Reasonism constitutes a new framework enabling contextual changes between fundamental foundational basis manifesting our thinking about how we relate to the realm in which we exist. This capability is so profound we call it mode shifting exactly because it shifts our mode of thought required in order to perceive and engage the unified Universe. Mode shifting represents an ability to communicate about paradigms of interest relative to and respective of different fundamental interpretive models.

Asking Hard Fundamental Questions

Once the requirement for unification was realized a review of the general literature on the topic was undertaken. Topics like Grand Unified Field Theories, etc. were reviewed. It quickly became clear that terms were being tossed about with wild abandon. We had to codify what was meant by what was said. In every instance where distinctions were observed we had to document the distinction and we had to review how that distinction impacted what we had already accomplished. This task alone took years to accomplish.

What is Science?

Science is a specialized branch of philosophy employing rigor and discipline in order to assure repeatability, learning, and stringent methodologies common to all practitioners. Many of these follow the branch of epistemology called Empiricism. Scientific epistemology integrates these various factors. Mostly because of its superficially obvious relationship to real objects and human interaction with them. What everyone seems to have missed are the “at scale”, logical, relationships human physiology instantiates. Susanne K Langer realized these issues and published book on the subject in 1948, but that book was philosophical in nature and targeted many in the art appreciation demographic. What are now called Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) occur when you mistake the abstractions automatically furnished to our brains by our senses as the actual real realm. When you make that mistake you fall prey to LEEs and essentially become ensnared within the logic trap that is M1, M2, or M3.

Philosophical Implications of Unification

That what Einstein had created with his papers was a logically correct view (e.g. M2) held deep implications instantly recognized by McGowen. It took several more years to discover Langer’s work. The epistemology error we all made now bears her name in honor of her work. Unification must be a predicate priority before any other consideration, and maybe with a great deal of irony that is a philosophical statement not a scientific one, but then what is science but a branch of philosophy? Part of the reason we all fell into grips of M1 is that for this very reason. M1 was the most successful model of science ever devised but it will never unify physics. We were in affect and effect, blinded by our successes.

Correctness of Context vs Truth as a Function of the Unified Universe

When we look at M1, M2, or M3, we can easily recognize what we {erroneously} believe to be ‘truth’. It is erroneous because the predicate priority thinking behind those models can not close to unification. However, no one realized that until the systems review developing Elegant Reasonism illuminated that ‘feature’. That happened partly because we didn’t know what unification looked like. That situation is now changed. We do know now.

Below Richard Feynman discusses discovering scientific law. When he points out Law A and Law B, think M1 vs M5. Both are simultaneously logically correct. The distinction between them is that the latter held unification as a predicate priority.

 

 

We need to be clear distinguishing Elegant Reasonism from The Emergence Model it produced. The former is the framework producing the latter. The former did not unify anything, the latter does. The former is the epistemological framework producing the latter and therein lay a major distinction between it and empiricism.

Predominant Thinking

There is no malice intended toward anyone in these observations because we were all in this boat together, including especially Charles C McGowen. So what is meant by what is said here is simply to observe where we were and why unification was so elusive. Why was what we were doing so difficult? It seemed that every time anyone turned around that descriptions and rationalizations were becoming ever more complex and elaborate, to the point that McGowen stopped, many times, to regroup and restart.

No model incorporating the spacetime-mass interface will ever unify physics. It can not, exactly because that construct precludes achieving the capabilities necessary to accomplish unification. More than that unification is, as we have pointed out, bigger than just physics. Unification is probably the most challenging achievement to date, without exception. The reason is that we had to first recognize that we were inside a logic trap and then we had to develop a framework that would allow us to escape that trap. Elegant Reasonism is the result of that effort. It not only illuminates traps, it illustrates them, and then crushes incongruities and Langer Epistemology Errors.

Divergence

Having not thought about any of this for decades during his tenure in corporate America, McGowen was under the impression, then, that predominant thinking was the same as Einstein‘s. It took several years to realize that this was simply not the case and Dr. Lev Okun articulated the situation best in his article The Concept of Mass. It seems that most modern professionals ignored his points. It also seems that most scientists ignored Susanne Langer’s points as well. In any event, it became very clear that predominant thinking had diverged from Einstein’s original thinking. The implication of that realization manifested what became the M1 and M2 models.

Why Efforts to Unify Failed

The short answer to why every effort prior to Patent Pending 16405134 Elegant Reasonism failed to unify physics might be attributed to several factors:

• Commission of what are now called Langer Epistemology Errors
• Inability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every reference frame as is required of all valid geometries
• Inability to fully couple all fundamental forces to all real objects in every reference frame spanning all scales

The second two questions above are actually answered by the first and that observation yielded a precedent priority realization that humanity had fallen prey to a logic trap of epic proportions. Once this was realized, and this is where the quest to unify physics was realized for the first time, the question then became “what do we do about this situation?” After asking colleagues and many others who we could hand this off to, it became exceedingly clear that if it were going to be done, McGowen had to undertake the quest. No one else had the slightest interest and certainly not the urgency. Having already tackled projects others had deemed impossible this just seemed like another in that list. That perception had more to do with ignorance than bravado. In any case, McGowen accepted the challenge thinking that the worst thing that could happen was he would join the very long list of those who had tried and failed.

The Moment of Inspiration

His desk littered with papers and books on astrophysics McGowen stood one day holding one of Einstein‘s papers. As he was standing, that paper in hand, he muttered to himself “that makes sense” and in that instant he froze, staring at that paper, repeating that utterance. After a few seconds the phrase became “that makes logical sense”. Knees going weak he plopped back into his chair and sat there with his head in his hand for over an hour. Having a systems engineering background he instantly understood the implications of the phrase.

Shaking off the exuberance of the Ah Ha! moment gave way to realization that some method to put all of this into some investigative framework became the mission. That mission ultimately produced what is now called Elegant Reasonism which can be broken down into three phases or parts: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis and depicted by the Generalized Process Flow shown on those pages.

Building a Usable Library

McGowen has for most of his life been something of a bibliophile, but now it became a thing needing to be done in earnest. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that a physical set of books was out of the question if for no other reasons that the real estate needed to house them. What has become the User Library here began due to this requirement.

Cognizance of Unification Criteria

Some of the factors needed to understand unification have been blatantly obvious for over a century and others were only subtly before us as clues and required considerable reflection. Some of the factors below must be understood together, holistically, in order for their full power to be brought to bear on the issues of unification. And under those conditions these concepts reinforce one another, strengthening the case for unification.

Understanding of logical correctness

Something can be logically correct and the physical view can remain physically different. This is the strategic trap many fall prey to. They fail to comprehend that their thinking is model based. 

Langer Epistemology Errors

Langer Epistemology Errors must be studied to comprehension. Click the links here and read Langer’s book, paying special attention to the material supporting page 74. McGowen came to these same conclusions as Langer but she did it in 1948 decades before McGowen and she articulates the issues with more eloquence. Consequently it is not required to read her book (McGowen had not known of Langer prior to his systems review) in order to come to the same conclusions. Which is in someways reassuring that ultimately these concepts would have been recognized despite any of our efforts. 

Concept Priority

Unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration. That was the strategic insight regarding our original systems review. Holistically the concepts associated with model logical nature, encapsulation, holding nature litmus, precluding to the degree possible LEEs, and the taxonomy of philosophy relative to science all equally and critically conspire to manifest the conditions necessary to perceive and engage the unified Universe. 

ENCAPSULATED MODELS

One of the critical insights is that ‘models’ establish and ultimately manifest the context within which critical thinking occurs. And it envelops it totally. If such a model is logically correct and it does not close to unification as a predicate priority consideration then you are trapped within that model escaping only by pulling yourself to a precipice above the model in order to perceive it holistically relative to reality always held distinct and litmus. Never do we claim we are directly describing reality. Rather we are describing models reflecting reality and the reason for this distinction is clear. We must avoid commission of Langer Epistemology Errors at all costs. 

Models may encapsulate nested detail sets which are also respectively and relatively encapsulated within the master model.

Laws of Nature

Logically correct model ‘laws’ are generally a function of that model’s established context. What we must do in order to declare we have a “law of nature” is for that law to remain unscathed by Elegant Reasonism’s framework. If such behavior accomplishes that feat then perhaps it is such a law. Few such labels have proven to be so capable as yet. There were many but most succumed under scruitney illuminated Langer Epistemology Errors. Mode shifting the traditionally held such laws resulted in shifts of answers to the standard what, when, where, why, and how questions. Newton’s laws, for example, originally taken as a ‘law of nature’, became answers to ‘what’ questions in M1 and M5 establishes ‘why’. Only time will tell how the intrinsic natural law is perceived which under pins these insights. 

Actual Reality is Always Held Litmus

The actual real unified Universe is always held unique, distinct, and apart. We build models to reflect it. Never, ever, do we say that we are describing what it is directly. Adopting this stance and policy minimizes Langer Epistemology Errors and forces rigor and discipline.

Determining Needed Tools

A few failed attempts to build relational databases abandoned that for something that could be created dynamically as needed and to the degree simplicity allowed. The first thing that had to be done was to inventory the paradigms involved. It became reasonably clear fairly quickly that core constituents held paramount focus, but there were other concepts that needed articulation and investigation. The first task was to create a simple list of these various concepts. Then a column was created which articulated how predominant thinking manifested that concept. Then an attempt to isolate why that manifestation either aided or hindered the unification of physics. ISO 9001 QMS Root Cause Analysis was employed. We then had a list of concepts and how predominant thinking manifested them. The question then became how to articulate “manifestation of concepts that would unify physics. What instantly came to mind was something from the Information Technology industry. Web servers employed by ISPs use a piece of technology called “Translation Tables“. These tables are what convert Internet URLs from human readable character strings into their IPv4 or IPv6 machine addresses across the IP network forming the backbone for TCP/IP data packet routing. Translation Tables became Translation Matrices. Once the tool this tool was created, all that needed to be done was to employ it in our investigations and Systems Reviews.

Translation Matrices

During the early days of establishing the WorkFlow of the process it became clear that standards would be required. Having had experience with ISO 9001 QMS standards it did not take long to employ a tool supporting those efforts and that was the genesis of the ISO 9001 Unification Tool. Somewhere during the process of building out and employing Translation Matrices, McGowen ceased believing that he could possibly be the first one to realize these issues. Surprisingly it did not take long to uncover the works of Susanne K Langer whose work is now honored by the error in thinking that bears her name: Langer Epistemology Errors.  Translation Matrices are used across Elegant Reasonism‘s process phases: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis. which culminate in a Treatise aligned with the unified Universe. During this entire exercise our supporters were challenging us to create one single paragraph that tied everything together. The paragraph that today is the cogent description of M5 had to reverse engineered after over a decade of research.

Ironically McGowen was so business dealing with WorkFlow issues, and developing the methods, processes, and employing the technology he did not realize he had unified physics for almost three years.

The Epiphanies

How many Ah Ha! moments were experienced have been lost to time. However, the significant moments of inspiration, like the moment holding that paper and muttering ‘that makes sense’ will never be forgotten.

The Fundamental Entanglement Function

When we drop back and consider the MBP in the context of Knot Theory we realize that it is the initiator for what that theory calls the ‘rope segment’. Viewed in another light as a ‘fractal initiator’ the MBP’s intrinsic nature is able to derive everything real, and in doing so makes manifest the insight that the Universe is a fractal. Euler’s Beta and Gamma functions find great affinity through convergence here, as do Benoit Mandelbrot’s Fractal Geometry of Nature.

Common Geometric Basis

Because The Emergence Model defines space as dimensionless nothing it can not possess any geometric basis. The absence of a geometric basis is actually required for that definition. Because that requirement and definition exists within that model we must shift our fundamental basis concepts away from the medium and onto the real objects in the Event Frame consistent with Proposition 0025.

Severance

Severance is the limiting process(factor) on the build process that is the Fundamental Entanglement Function of The Emergence Model, and where both processes are derivations of the intrinsic nature of MBPs. Severance is the reason for the constancy in measurements of the speed of light. Severance is why things are able to break and decompose. The role Severance plays within interactions across the Event Frame is something that will provide fodder for study for the foreseeable future.

 

Shop Now

 

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Philosophy #Epistemology