Realm of the C’s

Realm of the c's

Expected Rigor And Discipline

The ‘realm of the C’s’ is a phrase borrowed from business planning, and it refers to a long list of words and terms that are holistically applied during the processes producing such internal plans for enterprises, global or otherwise. Most of these words as it happens, all begin with the letter ‘C’, hence the phrase. Here these words and terms apply to every aspect of an Elegant Reasonism based investigation and especially to development of a Treatise based on such an effort. It is also important to remember the recursive nature of this process. It is anything but linear.

Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow
Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow (open in a new tab for larger view)

The Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow, depicted here, has other pages that elaborate on the words and phrases used to convey the constituent concepts. The realm of the C’s as applied to the methods, process, technology, and epistemology is reflected by the background bullet shading behind the three part columns; Recognition, Illumination, and Holistic Analysis and centers on the word Treatise. It means effectively navigating the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart. The intent here is to draw attention to the fact that the entire body of work must simultaneously be consistent with the terms found here and in any Treatise developed following Elegant Reasonism. Any discrepancy constitutes a (formal) process defect. Investigators should be critically situationally aware of their thinking as they move through the Decision Checkpoint Flowchart. Thought Experiment 0001 Critical Situational Awareness Thinking may help.

It should be noted that these terms do not just apply to the language employed in Treatise, but to every facet of any given investigation. We must be very careful in describing terms, variables, and constants employed in mathematics, and such operations must also conform to the rigor and discipline demanded by these terms.

Also note that moving left to right on this chart we move from chaos to unified clarity on the right as depicted by the respective sentences on those borders of the chart respectively. This chart is not intended to be an ultimate guide, but rather as fodder for a meets minimum for formal investigations conforming to ISO standards. This would be especially true of any Quality Metrics established as a function of any given investigation.

Each of the terms below apply to every aspect of this chart and the body of work that would be involved in any given investigation. From original historical research to final Treatise in compliance with the unified Universe held litmus to your or your team’s investigative conclusions. This list of terms is considered as an ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards litmus test for all investigations. All team members must generally agree that their effort meets these criteria at every step and stage especially in Treatise.

NOTE: It is vitally important to recognize that while these terms apply with distinction internally to encapsulated interpretive models they also apply to each area of Translation Matrices and the relative and respective analytical layers therein. Readers here should pay especial attention to the holistic application of these terms across the process & methods as well as the final Treatise.

Application of Factors Below

Factors discussed below should be applied to the highest most effective manner, to the greatest affect, by any given investigative team or investigator, but they must simultaneously satisfy:

  • Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe which is ultimately held litmus but distinct from any investigation.
  • Philosophical alignment with the unified Universe (e.g. unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there)
  • Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) are to be avoided, at least minimally recognized and if used done so transparently in full recognition of implications and ramifications consistent with modern information sciences application and Systems Engineering principles, practices and processes (e.g. consistent with the Systems Engineering Body Of Knowledge SEBoK).
    • Special NOTE 1: Great care should be made to respect the fine line between abstractions being instantiated by reality and reality itself. We should strive to understand reality but avoid declaration that we are defining it because the reverse is actually true (e.g. reality defines us, not the other way around). Knowing and understanding LEEs will help avoid mistaking abstractions for actual reality in any given investigation or fully compliant Treatise.
    • Special NOTE 2: Great care should be made distinguishing logical realms from real realms, because reality can instantiate them both with equal vigor. When we find two theories that are both simultaneously true, have all consequences the same, and agree with experiment, then science can no long distinguish which is the correct theory and we must look to the philosophy behind each relative to, respective of, and in fully compliant context of the unified Universe for those answers. Richard Feynman made these points back in the 1950s.
  • In situ alignment relative to and respective of each Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) and each area within the Framework as appropriate and employed by investigators
  • Holistic alignment relative to and respective of enabling material developed by investigators and provided as a function of the framework enabling effective mode shifting
  • Metrics developed by investigators needed to measure effectiveness must also take the process and mode shifted insights into standards based full compliance (e.g. to established standards)
  • Standards applied should be consistent with stakeholder and management goals and objectives at the time of the investigation (The caution here is that hindsight is 20/20, consideration of standards should be relative to how you believe history will judge the effort and intent.) Having said that: Keep It Simple To The Point of Elegance.
  • Consistent with Elegant Reasonism Rules

In Unification’s Wake, Part 02: Mode Shifting Mathematical Proofs

Remember, EIMs establish contextual boundaries made manifest by specific relationships and patterns as a function of their core constructs. Mathematics at the 2D Articulation Layer can not penetrate such boundaries. Mathematics must be applied external to those boundaries within subsequent analytical layers of the framework. This same situation rule applies to Six Sigma calculations and for the same reasons. Rigor can be challenging to apply and investigators must be vigilant if they are to persevere and avoid innocent commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).



Mode Shifting The Baloney Detection Kit

Insights should be communicated to others who are cognizant of the process used to develop them, otherwise such insights will be construed out of context by any audience.



Capability (e.g. Techniques)

The specific techniques employ tools borrowed from the Information Technology industry, most especially the concept employed by Internet Protocol Servers called ‘translation tables’. Translation tables (in the IT industry) convert machine addresses (on the Internet) to human readable addresses. Translation tables then are distant ancestors of the modern Translation Matrices described herein. Where translation tables are two-dimensional, Translation Matrices are three. Explicit detail is provided in the patent application. Essentially the Translation Matrices takes a pluralistic approach to Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) of the Universe (one of which is required to close to unification) applied against a neutral set of investigative ‘paradigms of nature’, subjects the holistic properly configured & completed Translation Matrices to intense analytical scrutiny, and holistically develops insights in formal or informal Treatise as is appropriate to the defined objective/goal. Because one of the interpretive models so employed is required to close to unification, and because Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of a unified reality, the holistic Treatise resulting from these various techniques delivers unique and distinct methods leading to processes that are “self-clarifying”.


Attention to details is more than a passing quality metric. Remember, Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details and those details matter, most especially if they are comprised of abstractions (and almost everything is). Consequently those fine details matter and do so systemically. They may result in informing you that you are working in a logical realm rather than a real realm, and that’s perfectly acceptable – so long as you never forget that’s where you are.


‘Cells’ as a standard refers to the content investigators place inside the intersection points between interpretive models and paradigms of interest at any given layer of Translation Matrices, and it specifically demands Critical Thinking and Situational Awareness skills in order to properly quantify. The 2D Translation Table Articulation Layer tends to be ‘column centric’ as its general contents focus on manifestations of a specific interpretive model. In the case of the left most column, those sets of cells are defined by the investigation. Other layers are similarly constrained by their relative and respective purpose and intent. Some cells have both horizontal components, others vertical, while still others have both horizontal and vertical requirements. For this reason it is imperative that proper knowledge management is applied to the development of these tools by investigators. Investigators are warned and cautioned that manifestations of a particular paradigm of interest remain true to the relative and respective interpretive model manifesting it. This requires such details to remain in context of the model. Knowledge management professionals should remain vigilant about various detail sets within a domain of discourse because constituents of such sets may change model to model as a function of mode shifted context relative to and respective of paradigms of interest. Paradigms of interest should ultimately be parsed as finely as required in order to completely quantify its manifestation across the plurality of interpretive models. M1, for example, must articulate how each of the dimensions ‘of space’ are made manifest relative to the factors required of the higher ordered construct of spacetime.


When the development of this material began circa 2004, simple ‘tables’ were used for “translations”. Over time, it became obvious that adding layers to the tables significantly improved the usefulness and power derived from these tools and methods thus transforming a 2D instrument into a 3D mechanism employing both vertical and horizontal components. As they matured they became vitally important in their own right separate and distinct from the investigations for which they were being used. There really is no officially correct set of layers, and the reasons are driven by the needs of the ISO 9001 QMS defined investigation. What is important is that there are enough to comprehensively meet the objectives of the investigation underway. Elements of each layer generally follow the columnar layout of the various interpretive models of the Universe employed. The rigor associated with any given layer is also a function of need associated with the particular investigation. Investigations happen to be costly, and investigation teams accountable to national or global organizations might want to be as complete and thorough as is humanly possible. Otherwise, it is permissible to conduct ‘simplistic’ investigations.


Chain refers to ‘evidence chains’. Evidence chains represent Elegant Reasonism based relationship linkages and the patterns they may manifest. Such relationships may exist within encapsulated interpretive models or as a function of individual analytical layers within Translation Matrices analytical stack as appropriate.

Checks (Process Decision)

Process Decision Checkpoints are places in the process where effectiveness is measured and assessed. The intent is to help an investigation to know whether or not to proceed or to recurvively review the work effort completed to that point. In many cases review is required. Seldom does any investigation proceed from the upper left of this chart to the lower right in a single pass. Sometimes looping in one area or another may take months even years to complete. For example, it took the SolREI company sixteen years to complete The Emergence Model, and that just gets us to the point where we can say it closes. There remains tremendous amounts of work yet to be done (likely by someone other than us).


Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart


Cherry Picking

Cherry picking is to be avoided at all costs. Remember, unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real and some of what is real are aspects you may not particularly care for, but here you must deal with them rigorously. Remember, unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then the only thing you may see is the proverbial bark on the trees and may have missed the forest. For example, rationalizing away the geometric requirement for a common real basis for all real objects in every frame of reference. Deciding that ‘oh we don’t need to know the source of that assertion for this or that reason’. Because you don’t understand something is not a good enough reason to ignore it.

The criteria listed here are not to be taken in isolation, but holistically, recursively, and across all scales. Great care should be taken executing your rigor and discipline.


Remember that Translation Matrices have different Classes, or areas representing various domains of discourse and the detail sets within them. These various domains have their own requirements that are relatively obvious and need no specific treatment here because of that obviousness. What is not obvious are the requirements of encapsulation of interpretive models relative to elimination of LEEs.. Depending on how a given investigation defines its objectives and goals will drive the taxonomy associated with such class distinctions and the domains of discourse they represent. What is important is the rigor, diligence, critical thinking, and situational awareness with which the investigator instantiates holistic integrity assurance. Also, remember that Translation Matrices employed at foundational levels are there for a reason, and that they are very likely highly systemic. Even if a given investigation is not obviously influenced by them, there are very likely real reasons to perform a systems review. If a given systems review is not fundamentally based on a unified reality, the truth it may report is a function of an incomplete context. That is to say its truth is necessary but insufficient, at best. In a worst case it is highly misleading and likely committing The Langer Epistemology Error.


‘Close’, or ‘closure’, refers to being self-contained context. The SolREI company has concluded that relative to the subject of encapsulated interpretive models of the Universe ‘closure’ to unification must be intrinsic, as a matter of priority consideration, at the outset of defining any model’s basic core constituents exactly because those elements are systemic to everything else that model makes manifest. Close herein refers to the ability of a given interpretive model to completely describe all aspects of the model with no further assistance. In the case of interpretive models of the Universe, this means the models must close to unification of physics. This requires the abstractions employed collectively, holistically and logically describe the Universe in a manner consistent with this section of this document. An inability of any given model to accomplish closure, as a matter of priority definition, constitutes a Six Sigma “sigma defect”. The degree to which it does not must then also be quantified, calculated and analyzed as a function of the investigation employing the particular Translation Matrix. Whether or not a particular model closes or not will significantly influence that model’s ability to attain the remaining factors of this section. The only interpretive model of the Universe known to this inventor which “closes” is The Emergence Model’s logical view: M5. M5 was therefore included as an element of the patent.

Another aspect of a “closed” model is the expectation that in conforming with this section, that it (e.g. any given encapsulated interpretive model) does not change in any substantial manner. While this at first might seem counter-intuitive to science and the scientific method, which constantly integrate change into their foundations, it is simply a manifestation of a requirement to iterate model designations or sub-designations. The concept here is one derived from the software engineering industry and employs versions and release levels. Once M1.00.000 has been declared then that “model” will be locked in perpetuity. It can iterate at some level, but it cannot be allowed to change. It may only and exclusively be superseded by subsequent iterations or a failure to use it substantially in any investigation.

To this end, SolREI has created a rudimentary relational database and placed it in our software library. Consistent with ISO 9001 QMS standards and the patent as filed, all licenses are required to report significant insights back to SolREI. Anyone may use the contact us form for this purpose. Appropriate insights will be reintegrated into the database for everyone else to leverage. In this sense and for this purpose that database in our library is considered “the master database”. The company is happy to help support mirrors and hubs as appropriate and as time permits given our startup situation.


That any case or argument be clear, logical, and convincing. A good cogent plan (e.g. method) for anything is compelling and strong. Powerful cases are potent, effective tools and methods. This patent is deemed ‘cogent’.


That context of any given investigation or final Treatise is rigorously justified, rationalized in a disicplined manner, and otherwise completely understood in fully compliant context of the unified Universe. That means the understood truth is a function of the unified Universe (e.g. with solid anchor points illuminating evidence chains to illustration) holding unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.


Model coherence means that every facet of any and every model of existence should be logical, consistent and united relative to its holistic whole. Its associated sets of abstractions should patently demonstrate affinity for one another. Concepts from the smallest scales should be coherent relative to those at the largest scales and vise versa. Translation Matrix coherence holds the same meaning except that it applies to the holistic Translation Matrix employed by the relative and respective investigation.

Coherence applies especially to the development of Elegant Reasonism based Treatise which in and of themselves must be coherent, but they must simultaneously maintain coherence with the body of work they reflect.


Facets of models should “flow” easily within characterizations and intuitively ‘fit’ relative to other facets of the relative and respective model. This is not just true within a given model relative and respective of the abstractions that model employs but from those abstractions out to the various paradigms of physics as well. Each facet should ‘stick together’ forming synergistic whole. Each constituent facet of any given model should dovetail with one another as a jigsaw puzzle pieces form an entire image once completed.

Commission (of LEEs)

By design Elegant Reasonism seeks to eliminate commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Does that mean you can’t work with abstractions? Absolutely it does not mean that. What it does mean is that you fully recognize the implications and ramification associated with their use in a fully compliant information sciences context. The diamond shaped decision block in the above Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) center left labeled “Langer Epistemology Errors?”, making especial note of that question mark, is what we call “LEEs Gate” in that process. It is there to ask you if anyone on your team is committing them and whether or not you understand the full implications or ramifications of that commission relative to your mission, goals and objectives. Where you are rather than where you think you are in this larger picture will determine whether or not you have in reality passed through LEEs Gate, and whether or not that is in reality true – matters.


The holistic whole should represent a relevant story or contain a core message about which the narrative is built. Nothing in that story should be incongruous relative to the holistic whole, and that holistic whole should be built on an interpretive model which closes to unification exactly because such models are foundational and systemic. That means those fundamental concepts are inter-related with all higher ordered concepts and should intrinsically support that holistic story. This systemic nature connects and provides communications threads from the most fundamental to the largest concepts conveyed.

Language Usage

What is meant by this topic title is not English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc., rather it is construction of sentences consistent herein to mean what you say and say what you mean. A review of technical history will result in an illumination of ‘claims’ being made that may not have been intentional, but manifest because of lack of attention to language usage or critical thinking not being adequate to the task at hand. Knowledge assumptions play into these issues as well. Broad agreement to those assumptions is also a factor.

Language usage is so vital a factor that it is important to understand that it too is affected by “mode switching” from one model to another. It is vital to understand this because the answers to what, when, where, why, and how change model to model. An example of this is if we ask a question about acceleration ‘why’ in M1 might result in Newton’s laws being cited. Not until we understand M5 do we realize that M5 is ‘why’ Newton’s Laws are true, and we realize that what Newton said is a description of ‘what’ happens not ‘why’ it happens. Consequently, these issues are not trivial and must be inspected with great vigilance, diligence and perseverance. However, these issues are not likely to be rendered explicitly clear absent properly configured Translation Matrices.

Words like “system” take on a whole new meaning in the context of M5, for example, because therein everything is a system or ‘system of systems’. In that context words like ‘complete’ hold differences deeply systemic and different from what we might otherwise expect. Words used both by science and philosophies must also be reviewed to assure their relative and respective meanings do not change by interpretive models. Independent descriptions of investigations which accompany properly configured Translation Matrices should clearly identify the interpretive model to which it is associated. This can be done by placing the model and its reference number in parentheses prior to the beginning of the text. (M1), for example.


The core messaging of your results should be as overwhelmingly in favor of your investigation’s conclusions as to leave little doubt as is possible. Every act and action of any given, most especially formal, investigation will be scrutinized. We are working with the various quality agencies ISO, NIST, and others to make sure that their materials mode shift. We are folding our activities here back into our NPEP criteria for our own efforts. We are trying to be as transparent as possible back through this website. We are a very small organization working to affect essentially all of civilization. Consequently what we can release will satisfy few, least of all us.  Please bear with us as we work through these issues. For example, page content of each EMCS01 concept likely is replete with Lorem Ipsum language. What we have done in the interim to publication is link every single one of those page titles back to our original systems review notes so you can at least see how we thought about that concept at that time. Our obvious goal and objective is to fully mode shift all of those concepts as examples online for everyone.


Complete herein means that all aspects of the various models are included and reconciled. That requires a clear articulation of all that works, all that does not work and implications of outstanding issues for each discrete interpretive model included. What does not work must be included as a ‘Sigma Defect’. It is not permissible to ignore these inabilities in sigma calculations. Logic artifacts and incongruities too constitute sigma defects in logically correct models. As of this writing, M5 is the only complete model. Interpretive models of the Universe should close to unification. They should describe the Universe “Big Bang” to “Big Bang” (e.g. from the beginning to the end and describe what happens at each stage). The interim phases should describe particle development and comprehensively describe both inorganic and organic processes. The model should conform to the entire set of “the realm of the C’s”. All physical properties should manifest as a function of the interpretive model as well as the fundamental forces of nature.

Completeness does not mean necessarily that 100% of all the details must be in every Translation Matrix employed by investigators. It does mean that in cases where multiple Translation Matrices are employed that they are clearly delineated, enumerated, and labeled. Their relative and respective relationships across the entire set of such tools must be clearly established. In this way foundational details may be relegated to one tool and inherited traits spawned from it to others. In all cases, however, the holistic set of Translation Matrices must conform to these same standards across all scales.


Complexity, to the extent possible, should be minimized or completely eliminated. Complexity is your enemy. Seek the simplest manifestation or instantiation possible. Having said this it is important to understand that establishing a generalized gradient of acceptable complexities helps to position constructs relative to one another relative to ‘orders of complexities’ that naturally result from Knot Theory, as an example.


Composites, in the case of The Emergence Model, means complex configurations of MBPs formed as a product of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance comprised of knot invariants many of which may be in and of themselves knot invariants but of lower ordered complexity. That is to say higher ordered (parent) configurations may contain many lower ordered (children) components (constituents).


The body of work involved or under discussion should take into consideration all aspects both direct and indirect.


Here this factor can range from competing Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) to actual business competitors realtive to the ability to leverage what it is you do relative to and respective of the unified Universe better and more effectively. In the case of hard (e.g. empirical science) this would likely manifest itself in the analytical layers of Translation Matrices inspecting POI/N instantiation EIM to EIM.

Concept Sieves

Concept sieves are related sets of concepts, usually in the form of equations, that are generally required to mode shift simultaneously between various EIMs. Today there are three enumerated sets:

  • EMCS01 – Original Systems Review
  • EMCS02 – Physical Properties
  • EMCS03 – Thermodynamics


Requires that volumes of information be articulated with as few words as possible and in the clearest manner possible. Brief but comprehensive. Synonyms are succinct, pithy, incisive, and brief. The material should be short and to the point.


Conformance here means the degree to which each element of an investigation adheres to the requirements of the various processes, QMS standards, etc., articulated herein. ISO 9001, for example, has its own set of standards, and those are subsumed by this patent. That is, this patent integrates those standards here as well and expects investigators to conform to those standards as well as those articulated directly here. There are many standards simultaneously governing Elegant Reasonism. Investigation teams must determine how to balance these requirements against the stated objectives and goals of their particular investigation as required by stakeholders. This particular section covering standards must also integrate other standards like those imposed by ISO 9000 Quality Management of standards, Quality Management System (QMS) Standards, those imposed by Bayesian Statistics in order to support that set of analytics, Logic Calculus, etc. Standards then must be holistically considered in context of whole Translation Matrices, especially the Treatise articulating subsequent insights based on these developed resources. The standards provide a means for others to follow in the footsteps of an original investigation team and duplicate the Elegant Reasonism derived conclusions. The scientific method demands no less rigor; however, Elegant Reasonism imposes new disciplines in the form of the methods, processes and tools employed in order to develop insights. Historically traditional methods are useful, necessary, but too often prove to be insufficient specifically due to their epistemological derivation dependent on human physiological perceptions regarding evidence. A larger canvas is required, and Elegant Reasonism rises to fill that niche.


Each interpretive model of the Universe requires that the relative and respective abstractions it employs to align with its own rules, regulation and definitions. This is also true of those abstractions as they may be employed as constituents of higher ordered constructs and paradigms. Congruence is both internal and external to all interpretive models of the Universe. The degree to which we have high internal congruence and imperfect external congruence implies the potential existence of ‘logic artifacts’ that model possesses relative to actual reality. The congruence of any given model is an important factor relative and respective to that model’s integrity and its ability to align with affinity to reality.


Influenced by conscience; governed by a strict regard to the dictates of conscience, or by the known or supposed rules of right and wrong as established by the reality of the unified Universe. We strongly encourage all team leaders, administrators, management and executives to lead transformationally with great empathy and compassion. Elegant Reasonism based truth epistemologically is a function of the unified Universe and other epistemologies are statistically weighted realtive to that truth. At the center of this thought is that very many are not ready to source their perceived truth in that manner and they must be taken into account relative to your core messaging and planning. Also remember that cognition is instantiated by the student, not the teacher. The teacher can only assess the degree to which cognition has occurred. Concepts, perhaps, have their place of instantiation along a curricula gradient, which is under development and at the time of this writing, very far from complete, much less accreditation.


Each and every abstraction, construct, paradigm, model, rule, regulation or other characterization employed within any given Translation Matrices be applied in the same manner relative and respective to that particular model as those factors relate to the various paradigms of physics. Consistency as it relates to Translation Matrices that analytics employed against one interpretive model of the Universe must be equally applied everywhere else in the particular Translation Matrix.


Constituents are constructs generally construed as components within a larger or parent construct (e.g. a part of a holistic whole). Quarks are constituents of Protons and Neutrons. Elements are constituents of minerals and molecules, etc.


In the noun form generally refers to the various conceptual elements being described or modeled. Herein they may be based on real evidence (e.g. empirical evidence) or they may be theoretical or hypothesized. They may also be a hybrid containing both real and theoretical/hypothesized components. Constructs may be complex composite structures or entire architectures. Remember, mistaking abstractions for actual reality constitutes Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Abstractions are acceptable factors dealing with constructs but you must always remember you are doing so and what they represent to the larger effort being undertaken. Where you get into trouble is using them ignorant of what they constitute because then you will also be ignorant of the implications and ramification they bring with them.


Content refers to the body fo work under discussion or investigation. Part of what is included here is the ultimate Treatise, but it also includes all the work it took to develop it. For example here, in keeping with NPEP, our original systems review notes are immediately available for your inspection, review and reflection. It is also worth noting that this also includes before, during, and after paradigms that had to shift as a result of your efforts and that should be reflected in your Bayesian Analytics supporting any resulting education roadmaps (or changes to them).


Perhaps one of the most difficult to understand the term context, generally employed herein, means fundamental foundational context made manifest by various Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs). It is the systemic relationships and resulting patterns that assure the integrity relative to and respective of any given EIM. It is for these reasons also that encapsulation boundaries are what they are. To violate encapsulation boundaries, at the 2D Articulation Layer, for example, is to violate that basic context that EIM instantiates. That is to say such a violation is a direct attempt to “take things out of context” and should be avoided, prohibited, and disdained. Besides little is accomplished in such cases. Explorations of how context changes is one of the main purposes of the EIM M4 since its role is emulation.

Here again a term has duplicitous meanings in so much as it applies to individual models as well as the holistic Translation Matrices employed and it applies to the various elements of the relative and respective models. We must remember that each interpretive model of the Universe employed by any given Translation Matrix establishes its own context. One implication of it is that one cannot think about any given model in the context of a different model. This is not “a rule”, it is a reality observed. Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) of the Universe create their own context and any trial based solely on such an exclusive and narrowly defined manner is subject to that lens. It is for this reason that Elegant Reasonism requires a plurality of interpretive models to be employed and requires one of those models close to unification exactly because such encapsulations which do not close to unification can only be logical in nature. Furthermore, it is imperative that the USPTO considering this patent application actually use this patent application as the basis for assessment of uniqueness. To do otherwise is to commit The Langer Epistemology Error. The USPTO must assess the uniqueness of this patent using Elegant Reasonism as a process within its own
organization in order to find the actual real value it holds. The SolREI company and the inventor stands ready to assist the USPTO in that endeavor. Any similarity of context across models is coincidence and should not necessarily be construed as ‘congruence’. One of the purposes of Translation Matrices is in translating or managing these various issues from model to model. Implications are that we must identify the basis interpretive model for any given description, at any scale, in order to establish the proper context for the language used in that characterization. Investigators are highly encouraged to use the standard nomenclature “(Mn)” where ‘n’ is an integer from 1 to 7 referencing one or more recognized interpretive models of the Universe prior to any given text. This predicate label will assure their readers of the intended context for the usage of chosen language characterizing their investigation. This is especially true of any treatise employing Translation Matrices. Parsing such treatise will undoubtedly require conversation and discussion about the various interpretive models employed, and because those models require “mode shifts” in the thinking behind them, such a label becomes imperative to assure effective communications between the authoring team and any reader.

Logically correct experiments, conducted in logically correct manners, immersed in a logically correct interpretive model of the
Universe will produce logically correct results; however, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not any of that effort necessarily represents actual real physical reality. Such only represents the ‘logical correctness’ relative to the ‘context’ of the underlying assumptions (e.g. detail). See SolREI Studios video on this topic.

Establishing the basic context of a given problem area against which problem determination and Root Cause Analysis will be applied also incorporates an inventory of existing knowledge of the situation manifesting existing awareness. The cost of doing something may not be as great as the cost of not doing something. In this case, not employing Elegant Reasonism basic context presumes foundational constructs which are highly systemic and manifest perceptions through which the various team members engage reality at its various scales and may be incongruous with actual {real} unified reality. If predominant thinking is mired and otherwise ensnared by a logic trap, then that logic trap forms the perceptive lens through which everything is interpreted. That lens will only allow the team to perceive events and circumstances “as the lens permits”. If the lens ‘paints a certain picture’, then that picture is the only picture the team will see. Elegant Reasonism demands a plurality of interpretive lens, one of which must close to unification. Only when the Elegant Reasonism approach is properly engaged, will the team realize that there are real objects, circumstances, phenomena, and events transpiring which other models (e.g. interpretive lenses) were not showing them at all. In effect, they are taking off their ‘rose colored glasses’.

  • Determine the set of foundational interpretive models required to illustrate the required plurality in order to illuminate needed insights.
  • Document contextual changes between the various interpretive models and isolate foundational paradigms of nature for integration into the processes herein.
  • Determine contextual layering by interpretative model. Such layering will establish systemic factors, relationships, constructs, and other aspects respective and relative to each interpretive model. For composite architectural systems, also determine the various ‘orders of complexities’ in order to determine the number of lower ordered constructs involved which also may need to be understood in context of higher ordered systemic issues.
  • Inventory, by interpretive model, the various abstracts, constructs, paradigms, paradigm stacks and their relationships, rule sets and descriptions in order to articulate how the problem being investigated manifests through the lens of each interpretive model. This includes all elements of all mathematics, their parameters, tools and methods, constructs, axioms, etc. necessary to reflect each interpretive model’s ‘point of view’.

Contextual EIM Boundaries

Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) establish fundamental foundational interpretative context. Their core constructs are uniquely and distinctly defined and all other constructs are a derivative of them and the patterns and relationships they set forth. EIM boundaries compartmentalize all consideration at the 2D Articulation Layer level within the Framework, including EIM based mathematical consideration. Rigorous analytics are carried out in subsequent layers of the Framework.


Contiguous herein generally refers to relatedness, inheritance, and other attributes of character illuminating concepts as part of the contextual holistic whole.


Contingency as in what other explanation is possible given the context of each discrete EIM and then relative to and respective of the unified Universe and then are those appropriately dealt with by your investigation? You may consider this “if then else” types of considerations.


Continuity is the unbroken and consistent existence of or operation of something over a period of time. Continuity is also the maintenance of consistent action and self-consistent detail across a communicative body of work (e.g. herein construed against encapsulated interpretive models as we as unification themes as a philosophical predicate priority consideration).

Core Messaging

This is perhaps a very contentious set of criteria any honest team might develop. This phrase comes from marketing communications and deals with the totality of any piece of work and the essential core message it sends to consumers. Understanding what these are, is exceedingly difficult and it may have nothing to do with the content of an investigation because the external environment may overwhelm the intended message. Teams should weigh core messaging very carefully and take these into account relative to the work they produce and release to make sure they are in context of and support the integrity of your mission, goals, and objectives. Failing to do this will undermine or weaken your ultimate positioning and messaging. Those versed in brand management will be well versed in core messaging and image attributes that support them.

Before anyone confuses any of this will sales vs marketing rather than science you are mistaken. You can have the most insightful science piece in the world, but if no one will bother to look at it, then what have you really accomplished? Someone else later in future history will likely rediscover it and be recorded as the inventor, not you. Flipping that all around also means that you may have a really slick sales angle, but if in the end it does not align with the unified Universe be careful because you may damage your reputation and never be remembered for anything and that fate has befallen many now relegated to the dust heap of history. Be bold. Be true. Truth aligned with the unified Universe will endure. It may be refined later, but the essential core message will endure.

Correctness (e.g. Truth)

Elegant Reasonism truth fundamentally lay in context of and alignment with the reality of the unified Universe. Just because we believe something, it does not necessarily make it true despite our sometimes fervent belief to the contrary. Elegant Reasonism truth aligns with the standards outlined herein as a function of alignment with the unified Universe. That statement necessarily employs the use of interpretive models in order to attain such an alignment because we never, ever, claim that we are directly describing the actual real reality exactly because we always hold it litmus in discerning truth. Contextual truth may manifest within any given encapsulated interpretive model. Such truth means that, to the extent possible, a model may find great congruence with the standards herein, but it does not close to unification. M1 is such an example. M5 also finds great congruence with these same standards and it does close to unification. Both M1 and M5 are simultaneously true to their respective logically correct views. M5 does close to unification and, therefore, relative to Elegant Reasonism, holds a greater truth than does M1 for that reason. So long as an encapsulated interpretive model manifests paradigms of interest in compliance with the standards herein, it may be said to minimally be logically correct. We must realize that does not necessarily imply that model rises to the level of ‘Elegant Reasonism truth’ unless it also closes to unification, simultaneously relative to and respective of the existing interpretive models and real unified reality.


Patterns and relationships that are related within any given context should correlate (e.g. provide contextual correlation). Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) should correlate across all EIMs employed by any given investigation or provide a rigorously rational explanation consistent with the material herein. Remember, EIMs establish fundamental interpretative context and boundaries which can not be penetrated at the 2D Articulation Layer, but only by subsequent analytical layers of the framework (e.g. not by anything within that EIM).

Coupled (e.g. Fully Coupled Reference Frames)

Stephen Hawking pointed out in his Black Hole research that unification would never be accomplished until all reference frames could be fully coupled. That means that all fundamental forces could be explained relative to one another in full compliance reflected here. It means common geometric basis. It means isotropic reference frames. The Emergence Model, produced by Elegant Reasonism, is fully coupled.


While here the term is used similar to the traditional definition regarding a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided, it is important to understand the implications of encapsulation and holistic use of Translation Matrices, especially the various analytical layers as stacked for a given investigation. Each of these varying facets may contain differing criteria and depending on the juxtaposition of elements within encapsulated interpretive models they may be counterintuitive or even contradictory. These issues are expected to be reconciled during the analytical process phase.

Critically Situationally Awareness Thinking (CSAT)

This is a combination of critical thinking and situational awareness within a dynamic, conversational, Elegant Reasonism context. This skill refers to the ability to conversationally recognize the epistemological source of truth and being able to reposition that discussion relative to and respective of the unified Universe. We remind everyone here to lead such discussions transformationally with great compassion and empathy. Understanding the source of truth epistemologically is one thing, understanding it relative to and respective of the Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) manifesting essential context is a highly valued skill.

Another aspect of all this is being able to discern multiple logical views of the same real system and if your quest is that real system then being able to distinguish it from the logical views of it without commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). We will share that is very difficult to accomplish. This is especially true if what you seek is a better (e.g. more aligned) EIM than The Emergence Model. Make no mistake, we believe at some point someone likely will, we just want you to be aware of the difficulties involved. (It took us from 2004 until 2019 to just get the basics in place. Hopefully what we present holistically here will save you from our pitfalls.


Never forget who the ultimate consumer of your information actually is. The issues, factors, and Bayesian Analytics and a great deal more all depend on proper focus, resolution and knowledge not only of that customer but of you and the organization you represent.






Browse The Educator’s Shop Here


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #RealmOfTheC’s