Proposition-0002 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Please note that this set of FAQs augments Proposition-0002: Albert Einstein, his theories and field equations are logically correct, but does not replace FAQs elsewehere on this site, especially not those relative to EIMs in general nor those of specific EIMs. Also note that we are not answering questions here that are answered by other Concepts, Though Experiments, or Propositions. In some cases answers are provided to insight subscribers, for example Insight-0001: Mode Shifting Why Electric Circuits Work.

See also:

NOTE: This page is under heavy development following a computer crash. Please bear with us as we rebuild this page.

Blinded By Success

Global enterprise has long recognized through competitive practices that just because you have been successful in industry does not guarantee future success. One must always embrace a willingness to be flexible, adopt and adapt as required to meet new competitive insights. Historically and traditionally the subject of physics was not viewed from that vantage point because it was considered that humanity was working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. Susanne K Langer, on page 74 of Philosophy In A New Key, points out that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is a fatal epistemological error. A few articles from global enterprise are, but not limited to:

The point here is that abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. EIMs establish fundamental foundational context for all higher ordered complexities of a model. When we mistake fundamental foundational abstractions for actual reality we commit Langer Epistemology Errors. We must endeavor to refrain from such errors. Elegant Reasonism was specifically designed to eliminate such errors through its processes & methods.

Q: Status quo thinking is the most successful model of reality in history, why should we modify how we approach it?
A: The short answer is because that approach to thinking can not accomplish unification, nor will it ever. It will never accomplish unification exactly because its core constituent constructs preclude unification. Systems Engineering practices, principles, and processes tell us that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. When we commit Langer Epistemology Errors we run the risk of cutting ourselves off from the insights necessary to perceive the path forward. We can not allow past successes to blind us to what we need to do in order to gain the precipice of unification. Remember: logically correct experiments, conducted in a logically correct manner, immersed in a logically correct Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) will likely produce logically correct results which may be necessary but insufficient to perceive or engage the unified Universe exactly because those results do not necessarily reflect the entire tapestry needed for that level of recognition.

Q: If what we are doing with status quo thinking is logically correct and we have accomplished all these great things why should we change or learn a new method?
A: The short answer here is because that thinking can not perceive the entire tapestry and it also does not recognize that errors are being made. The old adage that you can’t fix something if you don’t recognize it is broken comes to mind. Deeper implications with exceedingly severe implications to global business are discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Business leaders need to recognize that Elegant Reasonism is a disruptive technology. It is disruptive exactly because unification can not be perceived much less accomplished with status quo thinking and we need only point out the last 100 years of effort seeking it as proof to that point. Elegant Reasonism represents a net new epistemology and utility process employing global industry standards already familiar to every major business on Earth.

Langer Epistemology Error Questions Relative to the Logical Nature of Einstein’s Insights

Q: What are the deeper implications of Albert Einstein being logically correct and why does that matter relative to and respective of the subject of unification?
A: To understand the answer here we must first point out that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different. Once we understand that we then need to recognize that logically correct experiments, immersed in logically correct Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs), conducted in logically correct manners to well documented standards and scientific principles will in all likelihood produce logically correct results AND, that has more to do with the logical nature being followed than the physical under pinning of reality. If physical reality can support the logical view then it will still produce those same logical result.  Consequently the short answer is that the core constructs created by Einstein, while logically correct will never close to unification exactly because they preclude employing a common geometric basis point or fully coupling of all reference frames as is required by unification criteria. The spacetime-mass interface precludes anything real transiting that interface by a fairly famous equation. The issue is not whether or not what Einstein did is accurate or right because his body of work is both exactly because it is logically correct. However, logical correctness while necessary for unification is also insufficient as the philisophical predicate priority consideration must also close to unification and those EIMs do not, nor will they ever close.

Q: How did everyone get into this institutionalized status quo thinking box?
A: Simplistically we all were committing Langer Epistemology Errors and because we were, no one looked deeply at the abstractions involved. McGowen realized what was happening and in researching found that Susanne K Langer was the first to quantify and codify the problem and so he named these types of errors after her in honor her body of work. A metaphorical answer to this question might be found in a puzzle. The three equidistant rows of three equidistant dots each puzzle where all of the dots must be connected by exactly four contiguous straight lines without ever lifting your writing instrument and never retracing any line already drawn.  The point here is actually not in the solution to this puzzle but what was constraining or constricting you from perceiving the solution to the puzzle. The situation essentially delivers the strategic answer to the question asked.



Shop Now!


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Proposition-0002 #FAQs #EIM #M1 #M2 #Einstein #Relativity #Special #General

%d bloggers like this: