Hmmm

Hmmm_00

Situations That Make You Go: Hmmm Likely Clues…

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is executed by supplanting institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.   ~ George Bernard Shaw

In school perhaps you studied why something is true. Maybe you learned to employ the scientific method to explore your own experiments. Over the last several centuries humanity has, (in many circumstances, but in others not so much), published the results of such scenarios in order that our progeny may build upon that experience. We must then make sure we understand the context in which that experience was gained, and in this case absolutely none of the experiments ever conducted employed Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) which philosophically closed to unification as a predicate priority consideration entering science. A very large consideration here is the degree to which those efforts committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in the conduct leading to their conclusions. Most if not all such classes likely failed to mention anything about commission of such mistakes, much less the implications and ramifications of having done so.

Unification means the credible integration of everything real.

The Train Is Leaving The Station
The Train Is Leaving The Station

The more you scratch your head on all of this the more you will ultimately agree with the conclusions we stubbed our toes on. In one sense it is inevitable. Readers here should know that it took me 20 years of dedicated work to understand all this, just to this level of comprehension. Such as that level is in its current state. Just as a demonstration of my own denial know that I had written down the essentials to linking the fundamental forces together (which accomplishes unification) over two years prior to me recognizing the implication of what I had done and I had been looking at those equations daily across that interim of time. Then I had this, ‘now wait a minute’ moment where I muttered ‘if that’s true then…’, and then it became a ‘now what’ moment. At some point I stopped being gobsmacked by mode shifted insights and began addressing effectiveness of communications. Every single time I took some concept or problem science said it didn’t understand or was puzzled by, it mode shifted and without exception, including these. Also know that the cogent description of M5 was reverse engineered from the original systems review notes. It was not written out absent that earlier body of work. Sometimes they were simply logic artifacts that mode shifting resulted in their being dismantled (e.g. did not exist under The Emergence Model in which case they were here considered to be potential red herrings). Other times the concept or construct mode shifted revealing greater insights. What could and could not be became a subject in and of itself. Two series of presentations were developed: Elegant Reasonism Introduction & Overview, In Unification’s Wake.

The inevitability of the conclusions reached here was liberating in any number of ways but one way was that it meant I didn’t have to spend a great deal of time fighting with ardent defenders of status quo thinking modeling reality in denial. All the vitriol vectored toward me could be ignored as easily as those firmly entrenched inside centuries old bastions of institutionalized thinking. Ultimately conclusions about fixed fortifications is as flawed as monolithic thinking relative to the proverbial road to reality and perhaps for the same essential reasons. There are a few core elements that must be available to everything or the construct (or its habitation) will implode. The not so subtle point here is, this train is leaving the station. You snooze, you loose. Catch up when and if you can. The material is here and available at your leisure. Much to the chagrin of all those mud slingers out there what we’ve done here isn’t going anywhere. There is simply way too much alignment for this to be wrong in any meaningful manner.

One of the major insights resulting from all this is that all those aspects of science traditionally represented as puzzling or perhaps as mysterious, are the way they are because they essentially represent logic artifacts being made manifest by EIMs that do not, or will never, close to unification. Ignore all this at your own peril.

Chinks In The Armor of Status Quo Thinking Modeling Reality

Synonyms for “Chinks In The Armor”:

  • Fatal Flaw
  • Fragility
  • Weak point
  • Vulnerable Point
  • Vulnerability

The strategic problem with status quo thinking modeling reality is that failure to recognize the various issues and scenarios directly leads to a condition where success blinds investigators to the path leading to the unified Universe exactly because LEEs Empiricism Trap creates the illusion of congruence. That congruence however is primarily a function of the EIM and not the reality instantiating it and that condition is made manifest as a function of the logical correctness with which that EIM was constructed. At issue is the fact that something can be logically correct yet remain in reality different. Actual reality can instantiate more than one logically correct model of it. When we began our original systems review we were aware that systems engineering principles expect for every real environment there are minimally two views of it, one logical and the other real (e.g. physical). Susanne K Langer points out that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically a fatal mistake. Consequently every model of reality should have those two views (e.g. at least two EIMs representing it, one logical and one real). It is for that reason that M3 was expected to be the real view of either or both M1 and M2. The Emergence Model is holistically represented by M5 the logical view and M6 the real view.

The vast majority of the science community has found itself mired and otherwise ensnared inside LEEs Empiricism Trap and the only portal [I know of] allowing safe exit requires the proverbial Keys To The Kingdom to unlock. It is exactly this situation that allows us to begin discerning the clues underpinning those Hmmm moments. Folks that run around shouting that physics is imploding, physics is imploding, can begin to calm down a bit. All is not lost. In fact all of what you find here helps us all to mode shift what it is we think we know into alignment with the unified Universe. So take some comfort in the knowledge that what we thought we knew does in fact hold immense value for the work yet to be done. The topic areas listed below is not an all inclusive list but is representative of clues and broad areas that mode shift such that they all dovetail and reconcile in a standards based, fully compliant manner, with the unified Universe. Remember, unification demands the integration of everything real and that spans all domains of discourse. Rhetorically ask yourself if the fundamental model you employ as an individual investigator; whether or not that model closes to unification and if it does not what then does that potentially means. Readers here will also likely find folders in our User Library on all topics listed below (even if not directly linked here) and too a great deal more. Another thing that makes one go Hmmm (me at least) is that the list below can even be constructed connotes these subjects being capable of dovetailing in context of the unified Universe no matter how restful the relationship may be. They and everything else tested all mode shift, and that… makes for Compelling Lucid Clarity. If you agree then please consider helping us continue this work by becoming a Patreon.

In the midst of that rhetorical question asked immediately above understand that the salient insight from information theory is that a real system can instantiate multiple logically correct views of that same real system. While everyone instinctively wants to work with the real system that isn’t always preferred, much less possible. One can not, for example, bring a supermassive black hole into a laboratory for dissection. The investigator, and likely the planet they were on would be eviscerated by that construct (never mind the irrationality of the premise’ idea, but this example is in and of itself an example of a logical consideration). Another aspect that makes one go hmmm is the fact that all of the above subject areas dovetail into unification; whereas in the past they did not.

Context Domain

There is within the utility process and technological framework supporting the epistemology that together holistically are Elegant Reasonism and which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe a set of dynamic and interacting set of contexts that must be managed by investigators in development of their ultimate treatise.

Mode Shifting Concept Context

Mode shifting any given investigation usually conforms to these general approaches:

Wrong Headed POV

Committing LEEs leads to monolithic thinking and a belief that one is working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. Herein we call that slide into the abyss LEEs Empiricism Trap and it is essentially a logic trap of epic proportions that has mired and ensnared humanity for many millennia. Part of that monolithic, or siloed thinking, leads to the perception that there is but one road to proverbial road to reality and that worldview is simply an illusion. Investigators must manage the context domains in order to assure the integrity of their conclusions relative to and respective of laws that are EIM Principled Laws vs Laws of Nature.  Related to these issues is the belief that ideas and concepts can only emerge from this or that group. Such conceit and arrogance historically tends to not endure. This especially true in environments nurtured by constitutional republics supporting free market economies. The more liberty is defended in such environments the more true this is. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Ludwig von Mises, and many others have repeated pointed these issues out time and time again. The core message delivered by this website is no different.

Investigator Emancipation

Statue of Liberty 00
Statue of Liberty

Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom results from the right choice. The unified Universe does not care whether or not you comprehend it. If you are content not to see as you look then that is your choice and results are the subsequent consequences. Part of the point is that it does not matter whether you want to believe any of this or not, it fundamentally doesn’t change anything. The compellingly lucid clarity demands this train leave the station. You can embrace the concepts or not. All we can do is point out what you will not be able to see if you don’t. And to be crystal on that point what you will never recognize if you do not embrace these concepts is the unified Universe. While to some this may sound like a bold, perhaps conceited, statement the point is founded in solid evidence. Status quo thinking modeling reality employs constructs manifesting a spacetime-mass interface across which nothing real can transition without first conversion to energy thus precluding a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. Rationalization to explain away the need for such constructs only result in exceedingly elaborate logic. The inability for any of those efforts to close to unification is very simple, the EIM on which those efforts are based is a logical construct. Herein we can place POI/N with a plurality of EIMs, each making manifest that POI/N within the context of constructs considered therein real (e.g within a given EIM context).

Freedom Enables Pursuit

Once a given investigator realizes that there may be many simultaneously logically correct views for the same set of POI/Ns and that the rules here only require at least one of those EIMs to close to unification then they are free to employ as many EIMs as they wish. The idea being to surround reality’s instantiation of them all in order to better understand actual reality. EIM Principled Laws as well as Laws of [actual] Nature can then be compared across that plurality and holistically subjected to rigorous analytics. Logically correct experiments, based on logically correct concepts, immersed in logically correct EIMs, will most likely produce logically correct results and if that EIM does not close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration then the fact of logical correctness has more to do with the abstraction pattern relationships employed by the EIM than it does with the instantiation mechanics of reality.

Realization that reality might instantiate more than a single logically correct view emancipates investigators to pursue alternate approaches so long as they fully comply with rules and the realm of c’s.

Perhaps one of the most arguably frustrating aspect of mode shifting anything is the dynamics associated with the answers to standard root cause analysis questions being different EIM to EIM. Exacerbating that situation is that in some cases when you thought you were answering why questions you were actually answering what questions. We are so used to saying this or that is a law because it can be empirically demonstrated to be true, but what does that mean exactly? Thought ExperimentTE-0069 Why Are Newton’s Laws True?” explores many of these issues. I am not asking what happens but why what happens does and the answer must take into account every construct considered real across all scales.

more-wood-fewer-arrows
Putting more wood behind fewer arrows
  • Thought ExperimentTE-0069 Why Are Newton’s Laws True?
  • Can you distinguish and discern EIM Principled Laws vs actual Laws of Nature? If the primary EIM you are employing does not close to unification, how do you ‘know’ what you are looking at isn’t only a logically correct view of something reality is instantiating?
  • Why is time’s arrow always positive?
  • What is the basis of space?
  • What is the basis of time?
  • What is Time?
  • Are you not sure that what you think of as “Laws of Physics” have more affinity with your model than reality? No? Prove it.

Unification isn’t only about mathematics, nor any science in isolation. Everything real must dovetail together, and not just here on Earth but across the entire universe. The fundamental precepts must be isotropic. Those precepts are highly systemic across the entire entanglement gradient, no matter how restful the relationships may be.

Insights Must Be Presented In Cognition Of The Process Making Them Manifest

The rest of that sentence is: ‘or it will likely be out of context and not understood’. The flip side of that same coin might just describe what’s going on today across science. There are clues different investigators run into who wind up saying “it shouldn’t behave that way” or something to similar affect or effect. The issue is not the experiment, but rather the way you are thinking about the experiment. Said another way, is that the EIM being employed does not close to unification but it is logically correct within the context boundary made manifest by that EIM. While reality instantiates that logical view, and that view is also congruent within that particular context domain, it is not the only context domain reality can instantiate. The relationships and patters are just different. If you look at some pattern or relationship say inertia and momentum relative to mass, then under M1 where mass is considered variant then those parameters are handled differently than they are under M2 where mass is considered invariant. The context is different for those various parameters in the context domains made manifest by those particular EIMs. In those particular cases, neither of those EIMs closes to unification (nor will they ever). Part of the trick here is knowing the limitations of logically correct context domains and what that means to a given investigaiton.

Part of the point of the above paragraph is the set of considerations that make you go hmmm are different EIM to EIM, exactly because the context domain is different set to set. What does not change is the fact that each EIM manifests a given POI/N or not. Turning that coin around we realize POI/N are made manifest by many different EIMs and the relationships and patterns within each are relative and respective of the EIM making them manifest. It is more important to recognize that the POI/N is rendered real (e.g. instantiated) by a given EIM than it is to consider whether or not this or that EIM looks like any other. What matters is whether or not the context domain made manifest by a given EIM is simultaneously fully compliant with established standards, rules, and the realm of c’s criteria and other programs like: Six Sigma, ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS), Baldrige, or National Performance Excellence Programs (NPEP). Investigators encountering this early in their study cycles will begin to recognize that any given individual holds a particular worldview based on their particular life experiences. It is for these reasons we very strongly encourage leadership at all levels to embrace transformational leadership principles. Because insights must be delivered in context of cognizance of the process which renders them real, it makes little sense to simply present a list of insights because they will all be taken out of context by the reader. What we can say simplistically here is that there are no scenarios we have tested since 2004 that have not mode shifted to our satisfaction. Is your satisfaction the same as ours? Likely no, it is not, but then that’s why all this material is here. So you can test whatever you like. In any event we look forward to seeing your mode shifted insights.

Simultaneity of Mode Shifting

The presumption of what is sequitur is highly context domain sensitive. The speed of light is a great example, but it endemic of a larger problem. That larger problem is the presumption of a monolithic road to reality. That presumption does not consider the implications of abstractions in context of Information Sciences Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK). These areas of study requires a multidisciplinary approach. Unification must be considered a philosophical predicate priority  consideration entering science, not after you get there for all the reasons Richard P Feynman states, and many others to be sure, for multiple simultaneously true theories in his 1950s lecture on Knowing vs Understanding. Remember, unification demands the integration of everything real, and that includes philosophy and science among all other areas too even if only restfully so. Mode Shifting doesn’t tweak this or that parameter. It gang switches all of them at the same time EIM to EIM. It is too worth reminding the reader that what changes in the model is not the only thing that must change, your thinking, perceptions, and interpretations must also change EIM to EIM exactly because the context domain changes too. Therein lay at least one reason why it is named as it is because you must change your mode of thinking as well as modeling. If something doesn’t make sense under one EIM, mode shift it elsewhere and recheck your presumptions and conclusions. You may find yourself surprised.

Executive Summary

There is no proverbial silver bullet regarding unification. Elegant Reasonism is the utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and produced The Emergence Model represented holistically by an integrated context made manifest by its logical and real views (e.g. M5 and M6 respectively). Insights so developed must be delivered in cognizant context of the process used to make them manifest or they will be misconstrued. Only in fully compliant framework juxtaposition are insights fully illuminated to illustration such that knowledge management may effectively deliver specifically designed curricula to teach these principles to each other and our collective progeny.

Presumption of Correctness

The list above are not disparate subjects but integrated topics related by unification. The more you comprehend about the process, its framework, and epistemology, the more likely you are to recognize the relatedness, evidence chains and their respective anchor points. These same insights may then be used as metrics for you in your own pursuits to increase understanding.

Basis of Understanding

Education systems employing instructional systems design employ more than rote tasks but rather seek to create conditions of deep understanding of patterns and relationships in order that they might be applied in net new scenarios, different locations, and circumstances. Taking a clue from Feynman’s 1950’s lecture on Knowing vs Understanding, ultimately we recognize that science in isolation (SII) suggests a broad and mobile resource strategy every bit as much as the evolution of military strategy. Elegant Reasonism employs, by design, a plurality of recognized EIMs for any given investigation and at least one of them must philosophically close to unification (e.g. be fully compliant with both the rules and the realm of c’s). The general idea is to surround how the actual real unified Universe instantiates our various views of it in order to refine both the accuracy and precision of our understanding of both EIM Principled Laws as well as Laws of Nature.

Logical Characterizations

Our User Library holds many public domain papers, books, videos, etc. espousing to characterize or describe “reality”, when in fact what they are doing is describing the patterns and relationships of various abstractions and constructs within a logically correct set of conclusions and it just so happens that reality instantiates that point of view. That does not mean there is not another also logically correct set of circumstances and characterizations that reality will instantiate just as well, or even perhaps better. Taking both of those characterizations here then we have additional analytical tools and assessments with which to conduct deeper investigations. At least now we can discern whether or not our fundamental premises close to unification or not and which approach closes to unification? Which has better alignment with the realm of the c’s criteria? Which one mode shifts more effectively? Which possesses better articulation of all associated contexts spanning all domains of discourse? etc., etc., etc. Taking the core constructs of M5, for example, as a system then creates a situation where everything real is a system or system of systems, in which case systems engineering principles, practices, and processes come into play.

 

 

 

 

 

Please consider supporting our work through patreon.com/solrei/join

___________________________________

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification