Mode Shifting FAQs

Mode Shifting is a new term and it refers to ‘modes of thought’ about a given set of facts both natural and intellectual. Simplistically we might observe that the unified Universe is making manifest natural phenomena and it is up to us to understand what it is doing. The Universe is unified whether or not how we think about it is and it does not care about our feelings in the matter. There are many reasons requirements of accomplishing unification demand such a concept. One is that relationship patterns change Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) one to another.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: Status quo thinking is essentially the M1 EIM, why should I mode shift my thinking or work?
A: M1 does not, nor will it ever, close to unification is one answer. To fully understand that answer we must perform a comprehensive systems review into what M1 fails to accomplish and why. Conducting such a systems review must delve deeply into not only science but its philosophical roots as well. We must recognize the linkages between human physiology and empiricism. Then we must integrate many concepts from information sciences to reconcile logical systems vs physical systems in the full context and implications of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). We must also understand the intrinsic nature of abstractions and their usage. Our conclusion in light of these various factors and issues was that mode shifting is a required element of Elegant Reasonism’s processes and rules in support of epistemological understanding of the unified Universe.

Q: Why do relationship patterns change EIM to EIM?
A: Because how each manifests a given Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N) is fundamentally different.

Q: No wait, physicists and other scientists deal directly with reality how can there possibly be a different way to interpret any of that?
A: Actually, no they do not deal directly with reality. They work with reality through layers of abstractions. Each abstraction layer is systemically and hierarchically related. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Stacked and layered in this manner introduces fade of replicate issues in to interpretative understanding. This is true of every discipline of science without exception. Exacerbating these issues are constructs that are logically correct yet remain physically distinct from the unified Universe. What Einstein began in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, yet therein lay the strategic clue necessary in order to recognize and gain the precipice of unification and it also provides an example for these types of issues.



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: