Encapsulated Interpretive Models

Neils Bohr quote
Neils Bohr on phenomena abstraction relations
Melvin Schwartz on the beauty of physics and abstractions.

Can you build a model of any real object in your immediate vicinity without employing any abstraction whatsoever? Astute information science students will likely recognize that is not possible because the use of models is intrinsic to a logical representation of something potentially considered to be otherwise real. What is relevant at the moment is that human physiology intrinsically employs abstractions. The implications of this were first noted by Susanne K Langer in her 1948 book Philosophy In A New Key and because Langer Epistemology Errors were derived from her work they are named in her honor.

Elegant Reasonism therefore employs “Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs)” as a foundational element of its associated epistemology, but what are those and why are they considered encapsulated? An interpretive model is comprised of nothing short of 100% of all the abstractions, constructs, paradigms, descriptions, and rule sets needed to reflect the natural realm but that natural realm is always considered separate and distinct in order to be held litmus to our thinking. Models are science based. Encapsulated means 100% of the context they create must be included or integrated. There may be no aspect of the unified Universe not made manifest, reflected, or declared by any given such model. It should be noted that models may compartmentalize detail sets such that each is also encapsulated and nested within a given model. Protons and neutrons for example encapsulate quarks and Preons in The Emergence Model.  Integration of the various features and factors may be intrinsic to its nature or a function of its character along some set of observations based in reality. Never, ever, do we ever claim that we are directly describing actual real reality, lest we fall prey to Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs. Actual real unified reality is always held litmus.

See also:

Blinded By Success

Modeling Reality, Part 01

Modeling Reality, Part 02



Communications requires comprehension of the same elements by all parties participating and the fundamental issue wrestled by Elegant Reasonism is that fundamental context which is responsible for manifesting foundational elements – changes. Situational awareness therefore requires extensive critical thinking at every step and stage of the framework in fully compliant and holistic support of its epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Centrally at issue here is that people who do not recognize their commission of Langer Epistemology Errors are likely going to be opposed to conversations contrary to their world view. Such people are not cognizant that they are mired and otherwise ensnared within the logic trap that is today probably M1 based. The shackles made manifest by LEEs Empiricism Trap are some of the most powerful humanity has ever encountered. There are many people too who have forgotten the philosophical roots of science and have fallen prey to the schism that results from such thinking. What must be recognized by investigators is how these issues limit the audience for their Treatise until such time as their audience has gained the skills necessary for cognizance.


The actual real unified Universe manifests reality. Cognizance of the full implications here is that ‘the’ real unified Universe likely makes our particle horizon miniscule by comparison. Those details come with comprehension of The Emergence Model. The discussion here and now requires the reader to distinguish between the abstractions employed by humans and the actual reality of real objects in that reality. Failure to make this distinction constitutes LEEs. Fast forward the video below to the 7:34 mark.


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.



Models manifest essential context. That essential context is fundamental, foundational, and highly systemic.  It is vital to comprehend the first sentence here in context of critical thinking because it shifts and recalibrates focus and resolution of understanding of very important insights. When we commit LEEs we fail to recognize alternative models because we believe that intrinsic theories will manifest 100% of ‘the’ answers. What we do not consider is whether or not the entire fundamental basis of how we are thinking might be shifted into a completely different context.

Implications of Context

Imagine if you will a model of the Universe employing a construct we will call spacetime. That construct consists of four dimensions: length, width, depth, and time. Our model also consists of other constructs one of which we will call mass and we will declare that all real objects have mass (e.g. that construct). Another construct we will employ is called energy and it describes the other constructs in action. We will provide insights about the relationships of these constructs are such that time has a unit of one but which equals the speed of light. We can accordingly calculate those actual distances as a function of that metric. We will further declare an intrinsic relationship for energy equivalence equals mass times the square of the speed of light. Because we recognize, today, that what we are describing here is a logically correct model we can conduct various experiments and confirm using the scientific method congruence with empiricism based epistemology. We then declare those experiments have resulted in ’empirical fact’. All is good with status quo thinking right up to the point where we pay especial attention to the implications of two factors. The first is what we have already discussed in the form of distinguishing between models reflecting reality and actual real reality. The other manifests as a function of our comprehension of the implications of logical correctness. The former insight forces us to realize the implication that since our model does not close to unification and the actual real Universe is unified that there must be some flaw somewhere in our model of it, but where to look? The latter insight is much more insidious.

Sorting all of this out requires insights from the information sciences. Taking predominant thinking and encapsulating it into a model allows us the luxury of not confusing our model as a description of reality, otherwise we would be guilty of committing LEEs. Our new found insight then allows us to ask if there are any other ways to think which might also be just as logically correct and just as congruent with reality which we hold litmus. Our systems review developed The Emergence Model. Not until we realize through systems review that criteria for unification requires philosophical predicate priority considerations be given to fundamental constructs in models employed for science exactly because those constructs construe to manifest fundamental foundational context for every other consideration. Elegant Reasonism patently demonstrates through mode shifting context of one model to another manifests the ability to shift that context exactly because they are logical representations, but the entire holistic mode of thinking must change with it. Consequently Elegant Reasonism refers to that process as mode shifting.

Source of Truth

Take a deep breath and contemplate for a minute that we have two models, both of which are simultaneously logically correct consistent with Richard Feynman‘s video here.


Rather than call these models A and B let us call them M1 and M5. The holistic framework of Elegant Reasonism provides us with the process & methods to compare and contrast these two models juxtaposed with each other and two different concept sieves we will call EMS01 and EMS02. Both simultaneously manifest logical correctness relative to the concept sieves. The first model (M1) though can not achieve unification because its core constructs conspire to create an interface across which no real object may traverse without first conversion to energy which precludes the use of valid geometry to relate to real objects. Specifically we are talking about the spacetime-mass interface of any model employing them, but here specifically to M1. The latter model (M5) has no such problem and it is fully compliant with unification. The framework of Elegant Reasonism has as a philosophical predicate priority preference for congruence with the unified Universe. Consequently while model context integrity is required, so is holistic alignment with the actual real unified Universe. That’s where the ultimate point Feynman makes can be answered by Elegant Reasonism in full context of and by science because this framework seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. M1 does not close, nor will it ever exactly because its fundamental foundational constructs manifesting its essential context preclude unification criteria. M5 is fully compliant and does close and possesses the same logical correctness as M1. Therefore Elegant Reasonism prefers model’s context of M5 over that of M1.


Model Rules

The rules articulated below are in the context of encapsulated interpretive models and are generally a subset of Elegant Reasonism Rules.

  1. There are no exceptions to these rules realtive to the concept of encapsulated interpretive models. All exceptions found constitute Sigma Defects, either in the associated model or this intellectual asset and in which case you should contact us immediately.
  2. The rules here are isotropic in the sense that they apply to each relative and respective encapsulated interpretive model holistically.
  3. There are no special dispensations made of any kind for any given model and the actual real unified Universe is always distinctly held litmus as the final arbitrator.
  4. The actual real Universe is unified, whether any given model of it is or not.
  5. All models must manifest 100% of all real phenomena independent of any other consideration.
    1. This is the ‘encapsulation’ requirement.
    2. All models manifest fundamental ‘context’.
    3. No model may describe another, since the fundamental context cannot be assured. All contextual changes model to model must be mode shifted to assure integrity.
    4. No phenomena exists external to declarations made in the ISO 9001 Unification Tool, or its equivalent, and any exception constitutes a Sigma Defect relative to and respective of that particular model (e.g. both the basis model and any iteration or derivative).
    5. All Langer Epistemology Errors noted in any given model constitute a Sigma Defect relative to and respective of that model and any iteration or derivative of it.
    6. All mathematics must be made manifest encapsulated within interpretive models.
    7. Logic Traps constitute Sigma Defects.
    8. Concept Compression issues constitute Sigma Defects.
    9. Any phenomena occurring beyond defined definitions declared in the ISO 9001 Unification Tool constitutes a Sigma Defect.
  6. Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow
    Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow (open in a new tab for larger view)

    All phenomena must be fully declared and disclosed such that its intrinsic nature, character, and relationships to all other related phenomena (e.g. all patterns recognized) are fully communicated.

    1. “All” in this case minimally means within the sphere, or scope, of the defined investigation (e.g. an investigation’s domain of discourse).
    2. Successfully accomplishing this task requires completion of P1.Recognition and P2.Illumination of the Generalized Process Flow shown to the right here.
    3. This is the mission of Translation Matrices.
    4. “Real” is defined by Elegant Reasonism as existence in the actual real unified Universe.
    5. “Truth” means congruence with the actual real unified Universe.
    6. Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology, has precedent setting and holistic consideration, value, and determination regarding affinity to the actual real unified Universe.
  7. All models represent the actual real unified Universe; either logically or physically consistent with Systems Engineering principles and must be declared.
  8. Declaration of a model’s intrinsic nature as logical or physical is a binary choice and hybrid models are not allowed (e.g. they are prohibited). The intrinsic nature of the system that is that particular model must be declared within the 2D Context Articulation to assure the integrity of communications. Its relationship to other models employed should be communicated as well and for the same reasons.
  9. Ideally models of real systems should come in pairs: one logical and one physical. For example The Emergence Model is holistically represented by its logical view M5 and its physical view M6. Together M5 and M6 are considered “The Emergence Model”. Since it is acceptable for a logical and a physical model to be identical it is permissible not to have pairs, so long as it is clearly articulated and demonstrable that the pair are and remain congruent. It should be noted too that it is also permissible to have multiple of either logical or physical views of a given model for investigative purposes so long as all are declared.  Currently there are 3.205E+33 permutations of Knot Invariants, at a minimum, which may manifest any given physical property. It is by no means clear that there is “only one way to make something happen” (e.g. physically make something happen). HISTORICAL NOTE: The basis models are enumerated 1 through 7 with the latter held in reserve because Charles C McGowen did not understand in 2004 that status quo was not using Einstein’s original thinking. Comprehending that point manifested the split between M1 & M2. There are any number of permutations that may reconcile basis model enumeration, but the original enumeration was maintained for historical purposes.
  10. Basis models may be iterated within defining constraints so long as all iterations are declared either using the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent.
  11. New basis models beyond those originally envisioned are allowed so long as:
    1. The conform to the realm of the c’s.
    2. Do not violate rules of science.
    3. They are declared within the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent and communicated back to SolREI (so it may be integrated into a new version of the tool).
    4. Generally comply with ISO 9001 QMS standards.
  12. Elegant Reasonism demands, and requires, a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models be employed and at least one of those selected MUST close to unification.
  13. There are currently eight basis models recognized.  Model M0 honors Sir Isaac Newton and represents Newtonian modeling.
    1. M1: Current (e.g. <2020) predominant interpretive model holding mass as variant.
    2. M2: Original model conceived by Albert Einstein holding mass as invariant.
    3. M3: Real view of either M1 or M2 (e.g. this model instantiates M1 and M2)
    4. M4: M5 emulating M1, M2, or M3 as configured and appropriate as desired by investigators.
    5. M5: The Emergence Model’s logical view
    6. M6: The Emergence Model’s real view
    7. M7: Reserved and not available

Recognized EIMs

Elegant Reasonism recognizes seven ‘original’ interpretive models generally by their basis models (e.g. M1, M2, …, etc). Readers should clearly understand that what is elaborated on here are the results of having gone through the process of Elegant Reasonism. They are NOT simple declarations. Historical background information is generally available in our User Library and may be referenced there. They were not arrived at independent of Elegant Reasonism. They were holistically determined by the intellectual asset now called Elegant Reasonism. Even the traditional models were minimally processed in this way. What you see here now are result oriented insights, not ‘declarative statements’.

Interpretive models establish “context” for natural phenomena and the manifestation of physical properties. One cannot describe one model in the context of another. That is not how it works. The reason for that is very simple. There are too many interrelationships across the spectrum of the natural realm. To switch [thinking] from one model to the next, a methodology defined by Elegant Reasonism called “Mode Shifting”, must be employed.

NOTICE: This patent was filed on May 7th, 2019. The body of work it represents took approximately 15 years to manifest. The inventor, Charles C McGowen, the company that he works for, SolREI, Inc., are of the opinion that an international committee should be formed to officially declare, for ISO purposes, every element of every interpretive model. While our body of work performed exhaustive R&D to determine such factors, as a function of that R&D we became acutely aware of the diversity of opinions about these factors. There is no comprehensive agreement as to their definitions, order, relationships, etc. Dr. Lev Okun eloquently articulated these issues in his article entitled The Concept of Mass and is an example. There are two predominant camps of thinking about mass in modern science and much confusion. Many, if not most, today hold that mass is variant, and they will also proclaim that was established by Einstein. Those people are all wrong. Einstein did not believe that mass was variant. He believed it was invariant, and therein lay the distinction between M1 and M2. History records that Wolfgang Pauli wrote a book on Relativity and called it an encyclopedia. There, he erroneously believed Einstein had said mass was variant. Many if not most text books can trace their lineage of thought on this topic back through Pauli’s book and not to Einstein’s work. See the M2 model for details or Dr. Lev Okun‘s The Concept of Mass.

In the interim, there are some elements of such models that are common to all models. Now, if we take those few constructs and conduct a systems review on them, as “paradigms of interest” across the set of recognized interpretive models, we discover some very interesting insights. However, let’s review what we just said for clarity. In Systems Engineering, a “systems review” is a review into what it is we think we know and why we know it. In Elegant Reasonism that requires us to also conduct a review using the Elegant Reasonism ‘process and methods’, ‘technologies’, and ‘epistemology’ where we must be especially careful not to commit LEEs.

There are a few foundational core abstraction concepts. Reflect just a minute on what was just said. The implication of these concepts ‘being’ foundational is that they are systemic to almost every other concept and construct. Remember too what an “abstraction” accomplishes and what its tendencies intrinsically are. Then once you have contemplated those factors, consider reflectively the implications of LEE commissions. Once you have done that then reconsider the few foundational core abstraction concepts:


Now, as you read that list you may think you know how those concepts are defined, and here is the distinction that comes into play because of Elegant Reasonism, you really don’t. No one does. How can I say that? Well, Elegant Reasonism shows us that while these abstractions are present across interpretive models of the Universe, the definitions underneath them change model to model. And when that happens, how we know what it is we think we know also changes. Remember too that because individual interpretive models are logically correct, more than one model may be so. That is to say that multiple such models may be “simultaneously logically correct”. It is therefore important to have a holistic comprehension of various models. If we take the sixty some odd physical properties and set out to show how they manifest model to model and then juxtapose them against paradigms of interest declared by a given investigation, what we find are different relationship patterns emerging within each relative and respective interpretive model. Those patterns are to be expected because the interpretive models are distinct. This is the genesis of “context” and the reason that knowledge must be “mode shifted” model to model through Elegant Reasonism. Because we are ‘mode shifting’ the foundation, and that foundation is systemic, everything built on top of that foundation also changes, sometimes in very subtle but distinct ways. And because of LEEs, we might not ever know. Because some interpretive models are in fact “logic traps”, we also might not ever, absent Elegant Reasonism, know how to escape. More importantly we might not ever recognize that “an escape is even necessary”. Critical thinking is required in very heavy doses in order to recognize how these factors conspire to manifest Elegant Reasonism.

M0 Newtonian

M1 Variant Mass (e.g. Modern Predominant)

M2 Invariant Mass (e.g. Original Einstein)

M3 Real view of either M1 or M2

M4 is M5 emulating M1, M2, or M3  (as configured and appropriate as desired by investigators)

M5 The Emergence Model’s logical view

M6 The Emergence Model’s real view

M7 Reserved and not available


Remember mode shifting has nothing to do with The Emergence Model (e.g. M5 and M6) and everything to do with the Elegant Reasonism framework supporting its epistemology. There are many concepts in one model that are not killed outright by another but are significantly restructured as a function of mode shifting between, say for example, M1 and M5. Such abstractions, concepts, constructs, etc. must be fully taken through the framework’s basic phases of Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis in order to illuminate to illustration the issues relevant to a given investigation in fully compliant Treatise. Quantum Mechanics is a fantastic example. Not until we understand interactions across an Event Frame in the full context of architectural mass as configured by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance do we begin to understand many of the mysterious aspects status quo thinking presents. Critical thinking demands when the context of the core constructs change we must reexamine the phenomena we have been previously monitoring and measuring in order to conduct a comprehensive systems review in to how our perceptions are made manifest. We must take those various issues across the Elegant Reasonism framework and into fully compliant Treatise.


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.


General Use License is free

Commercial Use License

Commercial use licenses are only required when Elegant Reasonism is employed in revenue generating activities. Contact Us if you have any questions.



#Unification #ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #ModeShifting #EIM #M1 #M2 #M3 #M4 #M5 #M6 #SolREI