computers and flashlight

Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) FAQs

Also Reference:

In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions

and other Resources.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: What is an Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) and why is it necessary for them to be ‘encapsulated‘?
A: An interpretive model is a collection of interrelated paradigms operating under a set of rules which mimics nature as best as science can discern. Elegant Reasonism employs the term ‘encapsulated‘ to reinforce the fact that such models must manifest 100% of that models ability to reflect all of nature, not just part of it. This requires a particular EIM to create 100% of the context necessary to manifest nature and it is not allowed to have anything external to a particular model reflecting nature. Everything reflecting nature must be intrinsic to that model. The word ‘interpretive‘ is used to reinforce the point that we are working with the model and that we always hold actual reality separate and distinct as litmus (e.g. as a test for our model). This helps prevent us from committing LEEs. Elegant Reasonism Rules state that a plurality of EIMs is required and at least one must close to unification. You are free to choose any EIM that closes to fill that requirement.

Q: What does it mean when we say that such a model creates “context” and how does Elegant Reasonism handle such changes in that context?
A: When we review the page on Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) we find that a handful of ‘abstract concepts’ are common to all models. What changes between the models are the definitions of those abstracts. Those definitions are essential the model’s context. When we change those definitions, we also change ‘context’. Because these concepts are highly systemic across the entirety of such models, the influence of such changes can be quite profound.

Q: What is the difference between Elegant Reasonism and the normal approach to physics?
A: Traditional science teaches us that it works directly with the natural world. What Elegant Reasonism integrates into its methods, processes, technologies, and epistemology is that this simply is not the case. We work with ‘at-scale’ abstractions because the nature of human physiology intrinsically is subject to Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs. Therefore, Elegant Reasonism requires us to always hold actual real reality separate and distinct as litmus for “Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs)”. Elegant Reasonism employs a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) and requires at least one such model to close to unification. Other differences include ‘logical views of physical systems’, encapsulation of interpretive models to quantify ‘context’, and much more. Elegant Reasonism identifies LEEs, and seeks to eliminate them. Incongruities, logic artifacts, concept compression, and others are all examples of errors Elegant Reasonism seeks to eliminate and do so holistically.

Q: Doesn’t science always claim it is working with models already?
A: In many cases, yes, but in others no. The very name “Physics”, as defined, declares it is working with “the physical realm”. To understand what is at issue here one must understand Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and the implications of them in a systems engineering context. Elegant Reasonism recognizes that LEEs have created a situation where human experience creates the illusion that we are working directly with the physical realm but we are not. We are working with abstractions created by our common physiology. Civilization has progressed to the point where our “logical views” of physical systems has created a situation where we integrate these abstractions into the very instrumentality we use to investigate the physical realm and all that accomplishes is tightening the logic trap that is M1’s grip.

Q: Doesn’t this means that civilization has to completely start over with what it thinks it already knows?
A: No, but it does suggest a comprehensive systems review is needed. We are not starting over from scratch because Elegant Reasonism intrinsically integrates what we already know (e.g. M1 based knowledge) as a function of the requirement to employ a pluralistic approach to Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) of the Universe. The implication here is that Elegant Reasonism facilitates building new knowledge based on what we already think we know. The degree to which new insights are created through this process will likely depend on the degree to which that knowledge is based on foundational science. The more foundational something is, the more likely key insights will illuminate new ‘Ah Ha!’ moments. Mysteries will be replaced with insights. Known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns will all be mode shifted in context across the plurality of models employed by Elegant Reasonism. Insights developed in this way will seek truth as a function of affinity with the unified Universe.

Q: What is a Logic Trap?
A: “Here”, a ‘logic trap’ is any logically correct construct that creates what amounts to a self-reinforcing context which precludes closure to unification. M1, M2, and M3, for example, are all logic traps because they each manifest a ‘spacetime-mass interface’ requiring conversion to energy in order to transition and that requirement precludes any ability to reach closure to unification.

Q: Do logic traps leave clues to their existence and is it possible to escape such a construct given LEEs?
A: Yes to both questions. Logic Traps do leave clues but discerning such clues requires skills from information sciences especially including critical thinking, and systems engineering. One particular class of clues is herein called “Concept Compression Issues”. An example of concept compression is provided to us in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image where we find a galaxy named BX442. Edwin Hubble developed a formation process for galaxies one in the latter stages of that process are called Grand Design Spiral Galaxies. BX442 is such a galaxy. These types of galaxies demonstrate through gravitational modeling that they take about eleven billion years to form. The problem here is that BX442 is so far away, and distance in lightyears equals ‘back in time’ also, that there isn’t time for it to have formed since the time of the Big Bang. This problem is herein called a “Concept Compression Issue” because it requires us to compress formation time for a construct we should know through critical think cannot take anything less than the demonstrated amount of time.

Another type of clue is called a “Logic Artifact”. Logic Artifacts are issues which we recognize as incongruent but we ignore them because the logical correctness of a given model is useful despite the incongruence. M1, M2, and M3 are all replete with logic artifacts for this very reason. These models employ geometry with no geometric basis. They employ constructs said to exhibit capabilities which underlying features and detail cannot support. The bending, expansion, etc., “of space” is an example. Space is claimed to be able to bend, warp, etc. but it has no geometric basis point. The stress-energy-tensor employed lacks the same basis. We experience cascading issues with geometry between composite inertial frames in these models. Many of these issues manifest ‘singularities’ (e.g. mathematics breaks down) when moving from large scale to small scale. This is especially true in studies of black holes.

Q: What about the Multiverse, Parallel Dimensions, Time Travel, etc., how are these subjects dealt with by Elegant Reasonism?
A: These particular areas of discussion are all essentially logic artifacts of M1 thinking. They arise because of the logical nature of M1 to inadequately articulate the underlying actual real physical realm as a function of M1’s fundamental core construct manifestation. So what did I just say? Essentially the core constructs of M1 (e.g. space, time, energy, and mass manifest what amounts to a ‘spacetime-mass interface’ which requires conversion to energy in order to transition. Such an issue precludes the factors necessary for unification. M1 is therefore a ‘logically correct view’, it is not the actual real view of the physical universe.

Part B of this answer is that the construct of spacetime, in M1, has no geometric basis point. It is this inability of M1 that leads to such conversations as the multiverse, parallel dimensions, etc. Elegant Reasonism can take these concepts, juxtapose them in an investigation employing M1 and M5 (because one of the models must close to unification and M5 does) and illuminate these failures and simultaneously reconcile the issues in M5. M5 eliminates the possibility of the multiverse, parallel dimensions, etc.

Part C of this answer involves the concept of Time Travel. M1 holds time as a dimensional construct. M5 holds time as an ‘action displacement index’. Elgant Reasonism can build an investigation into these areas of discussion, again employing M1 and M5, and will illuminate M1’s logical nature, and while M5 is also a logical model, it has the additional benefit in as much as it closes to unification and M1 cannot. That single fact drives the resulting illumination and illustration of such an investigation’s Treatise.


Historical References

Any discussion of the manifestation of real objects must necessarily mention the historical perceptions on the medium around those objects and we must acknowledge a very long list of historical investigators without whose work none of this would have been possible.

Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical references by modern information sciences standards. That would constitute ‘moving the goal post’ and is generally prohibited by Elegant Reasonism. The idea here is to present the thinking, at the time, by that original author. Where this specifically comes into affect is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs); which to make this point salient was first quantified by Susanne K Langer in 1948 and codified by SolREI INC. Another facet of unraveling historical points of view relative to requirements of unification are both logical and physical views in context both Systems Engineering and of LEEs. Subsequent to this contextual update in our thinking we are then required to employ critical situational awareness thinking that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different.

“We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”, ~ Albert Einstein



Shop Now!




#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #InUnificationsWake

%d bloggers like this: