Elegant Reasonism Mode Shifting

Mode Shifting is the act and process of shifting modes of perception and engagement of any set of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) and the various Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) responsible for the context of that particular precipice (e.g. point of view). Mode shifting enablement comes to full capability through increasing completion of Translation Matrices employed for a given investigation (as illustrated above) and moving right to left across the Generalized ER Process. Great vigilance and rigor must be exercised navigating the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) and it should be noted that particular workflow is recursive, not linear. The recursive nature of that workflow is by design and an integrity check to aid in continually being able to pass LEEs Gate on the PDCF.

Investigators will very likely be awestruck in each phase of the utility process by some insight, but this is especially true during Phase 2: Illumination. These ‘awe strikes’ take place for individuals when they experience significant paradigm shifts moving them a little further closer to the precipice where they are enabled and empowered to both perceive and engage the unified Universe. It is during the execution of these phase steps that investigators experience EIM context manifestation. Perhaps more importantly is that it is during this execution that the various means by which POI/Ns manifest under the plurality of EIMs employed (and remember that one is required to close to unification). As investigators move their project from its initial stages into a more developed understanding they will increasingly experience a personal compelling perception that they are on the correct path. Here is also where it is useful for everyone to understand something of a quirk or human foible. We humans can all stare straight at evidence and not comprehend what it means. We have all been doing exactly that for centuries. It is essentially why the U.S. legal system has a jury of our peers to weigh evidence during trials and why scientific journals work pretty hard to present their works for ‘peer review’. The theory being that if the assertions being made in those processes that they are empirically true to the extent humans can make such determinations. That fallacy with that process is that it does not consider what happens if fundamental context changes because it was mode shifted from one EIM to another (e.g. LEEs Empiricism Trap was triggered). Investigators cognizant of the implications discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Businss Impact are well aware that the only defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it better and more effectively than your competition. In the end the unified Universe is going to impart its truth whether or not anyone likes it.

What we can report, for us at least, was tacit and palpable. There are a great number of ineffable experiences associated with these tasks and their associated paradigm shifts. There are way to many permutations making a full treatise well beyond the scope of this brief article. Cognitive psychologists will likely find rich fodder for research in these areas for the foreseeable future across a wide array of domains.

The salient question investigators should always keep in the back of their minds is: “Does this close to unification?”, yes or no, and then they should loop back to the upper left of  the PDCF and revalidate everything they have done so far in order to make sure that they are not committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) anywhere in the details of their particular quest. Also remember that reality (e.g. the unified Universe is always held at arms length, lest we fall prey to LEEs). Investigators are further warned that commission of such errors will very likely trigger LEEs Empiricism Trap. Our Original Systems Review spent so much time making sure of these details that just the notes we kept wound up consuming an 828 page book. Those notes are useful for several reasons beyond the obvious. They provide an NPEP guide to detailing your own notes.

Early in the development of what has become patent pending 16405134 Elegant Reasonism, it became clear that we were not ‘tweaking’ facets of predominant thinking in order to accomplish the goal of unification. We were “gang switching paradigms” that established fundamental modes of thinking and context. Indeed entire patterns of how we thought about aspects of reality, as defined by Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) were being wholesale shifted EIM to EIM.This is not just switching intersecting cells within the 2D Artiulation Layer between paradigms of interest relative to and respective of employed EIMs, it includes all associated evidence chains down through the analytic stack of Translation Matrices. Indeed it is changing an entire associated mode of thought/thinking. Hence its label/name.

The concept of “gang switching” concepts is essentially what one gets flipping back and forth in a reference book. Those 828 pages from our original systems review notes are presented here for your considered review, reflection, and consideratoin. These notes are now over a decade old and we consider them obsolete depite the many insights they yield. What we would remind readers is that these pages are notes for a project. They were never intended to be a book intended for a purpose of its standalone intent. It was simply a means to cross check what we were working on. That said, here are those notes.

Effective mode shifting almost always requires cognitive dissonance in order to ask very hard questions regarding the ability to effectively navigate the utility process, framework or any metrics associated with the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart.

The objective is recognizing a given Paradigm Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) in fully compliant context of the unified Universe.

These dynamics in modes of thinking became known as ‘mode shifting‘ and refers to all aspects associated with contextual changes between and across encapsulated interpretive models. Mode Shifting in Elegant Reasonism is fundamentally enabled in the framework by tools, especially Translation Matrices. Changing the ‘context of thought’ is neither trivial nor trite and deployment managers are encouraged to employ knowledge management practices and do so transformationally. Critical Situationally Aware Thinking is vital in the enabling process. The evolution of thought along these lines ultimately became “Mode Shifting” or ‘mode switching’. Exactly because insights are intrinsically coupled to and between the sets of Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) employed by a given investigation, it is important for consumers of the investigative results to know how the original investigators established that context. Consequently, these requirements bear down directly during development of the ultimate Treatise produced.

• Models of the Universe are distinct and discrete
• Models of the Universe manifest context through foundational constructs and concepts
• Models of the Universe are ‘encapsulated’

Introduction to Mode Shifting

This set of charts was built as an introduction to the topic. You may flip through them here at your leisure. Investigators, most especially new investigators, would do well to recognize that those individuals highly invested in established thinking instilled through decades of institutionalized inculcation. In our experience, such folks tend to struggle with the associated paradigm shifts and transition through standard stages of grief dealing and coping with associated paradigm shifts. This is both an introspective insight as well as something to consider dealing with others from a team leadership point of view. Another point we might make is that we very strongly encourage those so charged to lead transformationally with great empathy and compassion because there are a great many who are not ready to receive truth as a function of the unified Universe. It is important to realize that at this point and today, every human that has ever lived has committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) at some point in their lives if not continuously. None of us are free of that particular sin. That was one reason we mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit.

Investigators may find it useful to know that the manner in which we have established this network enables them to link and cross reference any book or presentation to other members of their teams. For example, if you wish to communicate or discuss the polar nature of gravitons this link is an example of how to reference our original notes on that topic.  Simply add: ?fb3d-page=5 and replace the number 5 with the exact page number you wish to reference at the end of the URL linking that material. If you would like to experience these charts presented then that video is further below.

 

If you would like to flip through the presentation charts online then click the title immediately above. If you want to hear McGowen speak to those charts then watch the video below.

 

Elegant Reasonism rules are as they are exactly because of these observations. Systems Engineering tells us that there are many ways to accomplish both logical and physical views of systems producing the same results. The succinct implication of this insight has to do with this fact from information science. Exactly because models manifest 100% of all phenomena of nature they must be considered ‘encapsulated’, Recognizing the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors we realize that different models will have different relationship patterns which manifest essentially the same perceived phenomena. That means that model to model comparisons must “gang switch” 100% of all paradigms in order achieve juxtaposition relative to those ‘paradigms of interest’ or ‘paradigms of nature’ (e.g. physical phenomena).

Because we are shifting fundamental modes of thought when we ‘reconnect’ paradigms representing manifestation of relationships yielding the same physical phenomena model to model, we must have a new way to refer to this capability. We call this capability ‘Mode Shifting“.

Mode Shifting then is a way of articulating how a given paradigm of nature or an investigative paradigm of interest contextually changes model to model. Simplistically this is relatively easy to state, but it is incredibly difficult to accomplish. During the development of The Emergence Model, we had to develop some 400 equations forming what we are now referring to as an ‘equation sieve’ each formula of which had to be mode shifted across the recognized models. Even mode shifting something like Einstein‘s mass energy equation is difficult, but it is necessary in order to assure the integrity of thinking associated with a given investigation.

EIMs Establish Basic Context

The subtitle to this sections should be “and encapsulation boundaries prevent EIM bleedover”. That EIM overlap is precluded because it becomes “out of context” relative to the EIM being worked. However, once fully immersed within Translation Matrices which effectively enable mode shifting, those discussions acquire an entirely new tone, manner, and meaning. Remember that exactly because the relationships and patterns change EIM to EIM the details of mathematics will potentially be different EIM to EIM. The discussion regarding the variance of mass resulted in the segregation of M1 and M2, for example.

Realm of C’s

Looking then at the image at the top of this page then, each EIM represents a unique context for every POI/N employed by a given investigation. Each has its own encapsulation boundary constraining mathematical assertions within. Each EIM area represents an area that must conform to the realm of c’s established by Elegant Reasonism. People who question “does the math work?” do not comprehend implications of commission of LEEs and are potentially firmly ensnared inside LEEs Empiricism Trap. Investigators are encouraged to review our post archives on this website for additional insights. What must be considered is the source of truth being employed and what instantiates that truth.

The criteria being discussed here is independently applied within the EIM established constraints as well as comprehensively throughout subsequent analytical layers of Translation Matrices. Ultimate truth under Elegant Reasonism is derived as a function of the unified Universe. Empiricism is necessary but insufficient in as much as LEEs Empiricism Trap represent potential snares miring investigators into misleading situations. Investigators should avoid committing LEEs at all costs at the peril of their investigations integrity. Simultaneous truths discussed in this Feynman video from the 1950s in hindsight came so very close to understanding all of these issues and likely would have had he been aware of Langer Epistemology Errors.

 

Critically Situationally Awareness Thinking

Perhaps some will be overwhelmed by the volume of information that must be considered, but what we can report is that it can be done. Just likely not all at one sitting. Take your time. Go through your material point by point, perhaps prioritized based on your list of what you think might preclude success and check them off one at a time. Remember the process is recursive for a reason. Never give up. The solution is there, and it requires your rigor to illuminate it to illustration.

Process & Methods

Technically enabling mode shifting occurs in Phase 2: Recognition of the Generalized Process Flow but the nature of Elegant Reasonism is its recursiveness.

• Phase 1.0 – Recognition
• Phase 2.0 – Illumination
• Phase 3.0 – Analysis

Concept Sieves

Currently we have three concept sieves being installed within the content body of this website.

• EMCS01: Original Systems Review Concepts
• EMCS02: Physical Properties
• EMCS03: Thermodynamics

So far 100% of all concepts tested “mode shift” with little effort across the entire entanglement gradient (e.g. smallest scale to largest).

Understanding How to Enable Mode Shifting

Completing the necessary tasks associated with effective Translation Matrices analytics which enable mode shifting may require education exactly due to the interdisciplinary requirements imposed by unification criteria. It is important to note that there are distinct types of investigations and they should not be confused. Development of a new EIM compliant with the realm of c’s constitutes one type and was undertaken during our original systems review. That particular quest spanned almost two decades and consumed more paradigm shifts than we care to count. The second type of investigation centers on your own systems review leveraging what has already been accomplished. At some point in the future a curricula similar to our example will likely exist.

Justifying Investigative Insights

Understand that mode shifted insights are developed by the investigative team who already understand the utility process and framework supporting the epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe, but your audience to whom you have to defend those insights will likely not understand any of that. The implication is that there will be no basis for effective communications. See In Unification’s Wake, Part 03: Communications. For all the reasons that EIMs are not generally recognizable from each other, insights developed by one must be mode shifted for recognition from another EIM‘s perspective. EIMs preresent completely different manners for considering the same Paradigm Of Interest/Nature (POI/N).

Justification of insights must be contemporaneous with cognizance of the process, framework and epistemology used to develop them.

Example

The example we are oft to employ is the rhetorical question “why are Newton’s laws true?”, and in a fully compliant manner we may employ perhaps five EIMs within the ensuing investigation in order to answer that question: M0, M1, M2, M4, and M5. While it may superficially appear we skipped M3, we did not. For right now why is not important, just know it does not belong on the list. For reasons well beyond the scope of this article we are also setting aside discussions about M6 for the time being. Having said that is important to know, but not necessarily to understand why, that M6 is the real EIM instantiating the others in that list. For now it is sufficient to put M5 in its place, but know that M6 instantiates M5 every bit as much as it instantiates the others and we can prove that by employing M4 and testing those logic changes.

Normal scientific inquiries employ something called Root Cause Analysis. Simplistically this involves asking the standard what, when, where, why, and how questions. How you answer those questions is highly dependant on the foundation of context established. There are several layers to pursuing such an investigation. Some are detail set oriented within the relevant domain of discourse. Knowing who Isaac Newton was is likely one of those early topics and why his body of work is germaine to the question. What few ever expected was for the answers to those questions to change depending on which EIM was involved in establishing the contextual framework. Investigators and students should at least be familiar with these basics: Modeling Reality Part 01, and Modeling Reality Part 2.

While Phase 01: Recognition requires us to inventory abstractions associated with a given investigation, in this example case, looking at why Newton’s Laws are true, that is a necessary but insufficient task. SOLREI INC has made the ISO 9001 Unification Tool available for that purpose but any equivalently designed relational database may be used. What we must understand beyond simple definitions is explicitly how any given EIM instantiates every abstraction so defined, and many find that difficult to accomplish. Some because it requires an integration of philosophy and science.  Others simply because it requires a level of rigor they are not used to. Remember, unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real, and if you can not instantiate a construct you though was real, perhaps it isn’t. That construct may be logical in nature and not real, but that does not mean you can not use it. It simply means you must recognize the nature of the construct and strive through discipline and rigor not to forget that nature or how it affects your investigation. For example, M1 is the most successful EIM in the history of civilization. The entire information technology industry was essentially created using it, but here we now recognize it as logical in nature and not real. So, we very strongly encourage those mired in Denial (See stages of grief above) not to be Blinded By Success.

When Isaac Newton never fathomed Einsteinian relationships. If we had to declare a distinction between M0 and the other EIMs that might be one item on such a list. The variability of mass distinguishes M1, and M2. Having pointed those factors out, we need to pause and recognize 100% of the constructs these various EIMs employ. Obviously they all employ mass. How it is treated is EIM dependent. While many people focus on apples or cannon balls (e.g. Galileo’s experiments in Pizza, Italy), most often overlooked is the intervening space between where that object began its journey and where it came to rest (and why it came to rest in that location). The basic constructs are: energy, mass, space, and time. You can click down the above list of EIMs to see how they are defined across the EIMs. We are not going to repeat all that here. M0 does not fully take into account issues of scale nor of velocities at relativistic speeds, and so we can reasonably quickly eliminate it from the discussion. Our User Library has copies of Newton‘s work if you want to read the original and not what someone else said about it. We tried to make that true for everyone acknowledged as having influenced the development being reflected here.

(M0) Objects move in a characteristic manner described by Newton in his body of work. That is to say we know what real objects do under different conditions. Missing are the elements instantiating some concepts and constructs. For example the real elements instantiating the existence of space and/or matter. The behavior though for all real objects is that under these superficial conditions they behave consistent with the formlas he laid out and are included within Emergence Model Concept Sieve 01 (EMCS01). While this EIM answers what happens questions more than the why they are true question.

(M1 and M2) We brought these two EIMs together here, but there is a broader discussion regarding the concepts behind mass which are better understood in context of Dr. Lev B Okun‘s work and we are not going to discuss all that here. Not until you recognize the full implications associated with the fact that what Albert Einstein created in his thinking was absolutely 100% logically correct will you recognize the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe. Both of these EIMs operate under the presumption that spacetime is a real construct. That premise was found to be false under our original systems review exactly because the relationship between spacetime and matter (e.g. mass) manifest an interface, across which nothing real can transition without first conversion to energy. That hard cold fact is governed by an equation needing no introduction here. This situation forces us to relegate both of these EIMs into the domain of the logically correct and not the real physical realm of the unified Universe. We would also point out that if you stomp your feet and declare absolutely that spacetime is a real construct that you are committing a Langer Epistemology Error and there are any number of implications stemming from that act.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Einstein nor Hubble had any awareness of the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors. In fact, most modern scientists today don’t understand them either. To be clear, we are not saying these men were ‘wrong’, just that they were logically correct and had committed such errors. The moment we arbitrarily attempt to qualify or otherwise constrain our answer as to why Newton’s Laws are true we must immediately raise our alert flags navigating the PDCF in any investigation. Concepts are either isotropic or they are not. All laws declared to be universal are isotropic or they are not universal in nature.  Understanding the depths of these issues as they relate to everything from Galileo’s cannon balls to why galaxies are flying apart from one another is well beyond the scope of this article. Besides the small issue of the spacetime-mass interface we also run head long into the inflationary theory of the universe and dismantling that requires perhaps a few headaches for many, but dismantle it we did. Yes, we fully understand that under these EIMs gravity is a phenomena produced by the existence of mass warping spacetime and we can have very long discussions about Lorentz transformations, none of which are particularly relevant except to prove the logical congruence which we have already stated exists. That’s not the point. The point is that logically correct experiments, conducted in logically correct manners, immersed within the fully compliant context of a logically correct EIM, will in all likelihood produce logically correct and expected results. All of that can be true and what is real can remain different. All it really says is that the real universe can instantiate that point of view, not that that point of view is the only one in existence. Real systems can instantiate more than one logically correct view of the same real system.

Under these EIMs, unification demands we fully characterize how the forces acting upon all real constructs – including spacetime – are instantiated. That includes requirements that explain how space can be warped satisfying gravitational requirements, expanded consistent with the inflationary theory, compressed infinitely to satisfy Big Bang requirements, and fully reconciles z-factor expansion factors in local frames. Inertial frames are interesting but we must then couple those back to every other frame of reference. We must also then explain how is it that reference frame move and to what real geometric object is their basis derived. And right there in that last point we run headlong into the spacetime-mass interface.

(M5) The cogent description of M5 intrinsically illuminates and illustrates why Newton’s Laws are true and does so in a single paragraph that equally applies to everything real across the entire entanglement gradient. Under M5 space is defined as dimensionless nothing and nothing can not influence anything real. Space is therefore eliminated from all conversations almost entirely. Time is defined as an action displacement indes under this EIM and that places a requirement on understanding the specific configurations responsible for the architectures of mass and we are working those issues still and perhaps for quite some time. That effort though does not negate the definition. Ultimately working the polar nature of Gravitons under this EIM produced the Bang to Bang insights which work only under The Emergence Model. These insights are simple to the point of elegance and therein lay the reasons for the EIM naming.

Example Summary

Newton’s Laws are intrinsically true under The Emergence Model because of how core constructs manifest everything real. Logically correct relationships are celebrated and integrated in fully compliant context of the unified Universe and consistent with accepted industry standards. To date, all tests and experiments conducted mode shift relative to the unified Universe. SOLREI INC has not been able to break this EIM, and we publish it here not only for your inspection, and review, but so that you too can investigate its integrity. We encourage all such explorations and investigations into potential other EIMs which may be better and present higher affinity to the unified Universe. We welcome all to take what we have done and strive to make it stronger and better, for in the end it will only strengthen its application across civilization.

 

 

 

 

Mode Shifting Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Shop Now

 

#Unification #ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #ModeShifting #EIM #M0 #M1 #M2 #M3 #M4 #M5 #M6