Andromeda M31Andromeda M31

Reality Is Unified.

The realm in which we exist is unified regardless of whether or not you can fathom that and the unified Universe doesn’t care whether or not you ever do. That the biology of what constitutes you functions is patently self-evident to that point, whether or not you recognize that. This or that space telescope is constantly finding fully formed grand design spiral galaxies at distances where they should not be. Ardent defenders of the status quo will vehemently tell you that those galaxies can not be that old, or that they can not take that long to form. They say that because they can not otherwise explain the hard cold fact that we found them where we did and what they would otherwise imply. In short those people are in denial.

The scientific method demands objective integration of facts and demands that practitioners follow where the evidence leads, even if they themselves really don’t want to go there. Let’s create a big bucket into which we will toss slips of paper on which are written complete descriptions of everything we know about the universe today (from every part of the world and science). Probably ought to be a really big bucket or really small slips of paper. It’s a thought experiment so bear with me. Let’s label that bucket M1. One or more of those slips of paper inside that bucket characterize everything needed in order to build the bucket containing all the slips of paper, inclusive of those characterizing the bucket. Here’s the fundamental problem. If those slips of paper are grouped by relatedness, they won’t all line up. They will reflect relatedness by scale perhaps. They may line up by experimental results. They may even line up with logical correctness, but they will not all be in the same pile. Why do you suppose that is?

Fact One: Denial

Humans have a hard time building success on top of previous success. Success very often blinds us to the actions necessary in order to endure. There are any number of examples which might be cited. Take any industry you like from inception to end of life and then list the enterprises participating in that industry and their life times. Some persist perhaps decades and others flash meteorically and are gone in an instant. By any standard, the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) M1 is the most successful model to reflect reality ever devised by humanity. It’s success though is not the correct metric. The correct metric is whether or not is closes to unification and then, only then, may we begin working on improving the degree of success it enjoys.

Denial comes in many forms. Once we become so familial with people, situations, circumstances, education, etc. the one thing we never want, humans traditional do not want, is for any of those factors to change. When they do change and those changes are contrary to what we expect, our brains take us into a place of denial as a matter of self protection/preservation. If those changes are permanent then we as individuals will begin to transition through standard stages of grief.  If perchance you happen to grasp Elegant Reasonism quickly then do not expect others to run after you. You will need to spend quite a bit of time with them helping them to shift their paradigms in order to gain the precipice of unification.

Fact Two: Can’t Get There From Here

There are tons of folks running around and convincing lots of people to spend great sums of money, resources, and human capital on efforts whose basis will never close to unification. What does that tell you about the viability of those efforts? We think they need no further characterization.  The hard cold fact is that M1 does not close to unification. No one employing it can use, for example, a common geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference. Why is that? The answer to that question is M1‘s core constructs preclude it by their definitions and that hard cold fact should immediately grab your attention. Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that hard cold fact precludes the use of a common geometric basis point. What that ought to tell any objective observer backing up to survey the entire landscape built upon the successes of those constructs is that the constructs are in fact logically correct and that fact should be screaming “logical correctness” rather than “physical correctness”. Strategically at issue is recognition of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). These types of epistemological errors occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. All those people who thought they were working directly with actual reality are in fact working with abstractions of reality. The implication is rather profound. Epic in fact. When we realize that what Albert Einstein created beginning about 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and we recognize information sciences systems engineering principles, we are suddenly confronted with the strategic clue needed in order to gain the precipice of unification. What we need is a utility process, framework, and epistemology whose primary mission is to reflect reality as a function of the unified Universe and that is exactly what Elegant Reasonism is.

The profundity ramps up not when we acknowledge that M1 does not close to unification, but when we recognize that it never will. That does not mean M1 is ‘wrong’, just that it can not close. There are investigative reasons M1 is a fabulous investigative tool, but we must also recognize its logically imposed limitations from a Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) point of view. M1 will never close to unification regardless of how much money, time, resources, energy, or people we throw at it exactly because the relationships between its core constructs preclude the ability to reconcile those requirements. Notably the use of a common geometric basis point or being able to fully couple all reference frames. Both of these examples were noted by Stephen Hawking as requirements for unification many times. The very hard cold fact is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. People can stomp on the floor and shout all they want to but in the end they will never get past that point or the implication it holds.

The very real implication is that because of that hard cold fact about M1 and its logical nature, a net new Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) which is capable of closing to unification is required. The question then becomes what does that look like and how do we build it. Our answer to how questions is Elegant Reasonism. Our answer to the what questions is The Emergence Model.

Fact Three: Compliance

While it is necessary for any given EIM to close to unification it must do so fully compliant with a host and range of other criteria or that fact is simply insufficient.  The Emergence Model‘s cogent description of M5 patently demonstrates reconciliation of the aforementioned failures of M1, but through our original systems review comes the awareness that it also fully complies with what we call the realm of c’s. Just as important has those factors are, Elegant Reasonism fully supports ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems standards, Baldrige Programs, and Six Sigma programs. There are a range of implications from these insights as well that will become obvious in the fullness of time and maturity.

Besides those factors The Emergence Model satisfies what we call the realm of c’s.  They are words usually beginning with that letter, like cogent, cohesive, etc. One of those words is “close” and it is a hard cold fact that status quo thinkers can not check that one off their list. We not only  check it off but we holistically dovetail into unification across the entire entanglement gradient. Which in hindsight should  have also been expected.

Fact Four: Mode Shifting What It Is We Think We Currently Know

For over a decade now, SOLREI INC has been trying to break Elegant Reasonism and/or The Emergence Model and we are out of ideas to do so. Any attempt to create a better EIM than the Emergence Model only serves to make Elegant Reasonism more powerful than it already is. Any attempt to improve the resolution of precision associated with what constitutes its Most Basic Particle (MBP) only serves to increase that EIM‘s capabilities. The biggest remaining piece of work needing to be done in all of that is pursuit of how architectures of mass manifest physical properties. We have several ideas along those lines for experimental pursuit but the computational platforms simply do not yet exist that are powerful enough to simultaneously deal with the entire entanglement gradient to sufficient degree of acceptable integrity. What is needed is likely at least an order of magnitude more powerful than Summit. Consider that under Knot Theory that just knots with 10 or fewer crossings may have permutations exceeding 3.02+E33 constructs, and even that just scratches the surface. We could go on here for hours about the different factors. The point is that this challenge is huge and it will require an R&D computing platform that can meet that challenge head on. Coincidentally the same guy whose name is on the USPTO patent application for Elegant Reasonism also happened to have worked for the company that built Summit in the first place. No one on Earth knows this situation better than we do. We have requested the National Science Foundation consider constructing a system capable of meeting not just theoretical needs but those of industry actively participating in the global economy. We have mode shifted hundreds of equations, over 60 thought experiments, laundry lists of concepts and propositions. Does this prove beyond any shadow fo a doubt this is correct? Not really, we have a great deal more work to d9o but it does mean that we have exceedingly high confidence levels that we are on the right track with all of this.

Fact Five: The unified Universe

Carl Sagan on Scientists
Carl Sagan on Scientists
Carl Sagan on the pale blue dot
Carl Sagan on the pale blue dot

When we take our original systems review and begin mode shifting what it is we though we knew from M1 into alignment with the unified Universe, as interpreted by M5 (or potentially another EIM also closing), what we find is a reality that is unfathomably ancient and unknowably vast. There is ample time for objects like those being found by both JWST and HST to have formed since the Big Bang. In fact suddenly we can describe our little portion of the unified Universe (e.g. that portion inside our particle horizon) Bang to Bang. Go ask your ardent M1 supporter who remains entrenched in denial what existed prior to the Big Bang and watch the ensuing elaborate answer or personal attacks because they are angry. There exist any number of metaphors here but we simply made a pass at mode shifting Carl’s Baloney Detection Kit. Our observation is that it does not matter whether you consider William of Ockham‘s requirement for simplicity or Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma. Ultimately when we consider the requirement of unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering the realm of science, not after we get there, we are suddenly provided tools which were not previously available in our tool box. With those tools, the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe is made available to our nascent civilization for the first time in its meager history.

Fact Six: Unification In Hindsight

Most who discuss unification do so in context of theoretical astrophysics, and candidly so did we for a very long time. Here’s the issue with that, and we did not realize the full implications of this until after we had accomplished unification. The insight is that unification demands a credible ability to manifest everything real from a given EIM, no matter how restful. Said another way, everything real must dovetail. When you recognize that that also includes integration of philosophy and science things will start to get pretty epic. Unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse or its constituent detail sets. Existing areas of knowledge must be mode shifted and we call on civilization to conduct such a review as appropriate. Students here in the fullness of time recognize how to create the appropriate anchor points for evidence chains establishing exactly these types of patterns and relationships. When your proverbial lightbulb is turned on you will also comprehend the epic nature of what has been accomplished by civilization. These issues rendered succinct in context of the ability to characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang.

Just as soon as the astrophysics comes together you are immediately hit with the requirement to integrate everything else real or you really have not achieved unification. In the case of The Emergence Model many restful points anchor back through intrinsic action of architectural mass. In that context, and fully navigating Elegant Reasonism, we’ve not been able to break neither the process nor the EIM, but and by all means you are welcome to give that a go too. We encourage and support those activities. Every time we tried the only thing we accomplished were deeper insights into why it was correct in the first place.

Fact Seven: Go Outside And Find A Mineralized Rock

After you read this paragraph, go out side and find a highly mineralized rock of some sort. It doesn’t matter really what type. Ideally it would contain higher ordered elements on the Periodic Table. Heft that rock in your hand. As you stare at that specimen you’ve found know that those higher ordered elements that are constituents of those minerals in that rock were fired in the crucible of a supernova many lightyears away from where you are standing as feel the surface of that material. That rock is a real object. The implication of you holding that rock in your hand is that you can not deny that rock is here, on Earth, and in your hand. That object in your hand is irrevocably linked and related to the supernova which gave birth to it. It means those elements had to have had time to travel from that source to the moment it arrived in your hand. How much time do you think that was? If you think it took more time to get here than the unified Universe is old then somebody’s thinking needs paradigm shifts exactly because you are in fact holding the proof that material made that trip in your hand. When we mode shift the age of the unified Universe and then reconsider just how big it really is the age exceeds factors that might otherwise minimize the opportunity for you to hold that rock. However, when we do mode shift these subjects we find that there is ample time for that travel to have transpired and is perfectly consistent with you being able to hold that rock.

Fact Eight: Why You Should Care

Simply from the point of view that the precipice of unification allows you to perceive and engage the entire spectrum available should be enough but for many that’s not enough.  Others are happy with their status quo position because it is familial and to them logically correct within the scope of their respective domain of influence; which is fine, right up to the point someone else mode shifts that realm and declares it theirs. Status quo thinking is something of a house of cards built within LEEs Empiricism Trap. Part of why you should care in light of this insight is that the only defense against this highly disruptive technology is wielding it more effectively than your competition, and even then we strongly encourage you to do so transformationally.

Another reason to care is risk management. If the interpretative basis for your existing risk management programs can not close to unification then you are not seeing the entire tapestry affecting your decisions. Then we have the previous point about competitive volatility. How do you know something you would like to work on is not a red herring? What is the degree to which ROI is going to be effective? Posit the resources, capital, time, energy and human effort put into major research efforts. Are those experiments capable of discerning truth as a function of the unified Universe or do they tie out to EIM congruence but can not close to unification? What are your sigma defects in that scenario? Do you even know? Now these issues are one thing for administrators of such projects but they are an entirely different matter for stakeholders and shareholders significantly invested and vested in those results.

Fact Nine: Clarity

Many will not like hearing this, but Elegant Reasonism is considered here a superset epistemology because it integrates all of the traditional epistemologies but it statistically weights them relative to and respective of their ability to fully comply with the realm of c’s, Elegant Reasonism Rules, and the unified Universe which is always held litmus. Our experience has been that Elegant Reasonism tends to be self-clarifying in that even when we were confident we were about to break some aspect of it, the process, framework and epistemology illuminated and illustrated why our original assumptions were wrong and then brought our premise into alignment with the unified Universe. We have been stunned about these outcomes more often than we could count or document. It became commonplace during our original systems review. That said we must be careful not to commit cognitive bias in any conclusions. We must fully vet all investigative results consistent with the scientific method. However, in doing so we must also not forget that unification criteria must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after we get there. The reason is simply that we need a basis to compare and contrast simultaneous truths which all agree with experiment to the unified Universe. If you can not do that, then you have paradigm shifts to affect with great effect and work to accomplish.

Fact Ten: Epistemological Justification

One aspect of accomplishing unification we did not expect, and I mean not at all, was the degree to which encapsulation influences the ability to perceive insights developed through Elegant Reasonism. No one expected Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and it has generally been thought that we were directly engaging reality when in fact what we have been doing in effect is working with abstractions of it. There are many different ways these issues may manifest and some are discussed in our presentations available through our network presence. The point here is that insights will very often, if not always, need to be presented along with the process, framework and epistemology in order to establish justification to those who are not familiar with any of this. Ignore this caution at your own peril. Even with this approach investigators need to recognize that highly vested individuals in status quo positions may require transitioning through industry standard stages of grief dealing/coping with all of this and we can not encourage strongly enough for team leaders and management conduct themselves transformationally. Perhaps said more harshly is that if you do not understand the process or framework you will also not understand the insights it develops, much less the path to its epistemology. Once you do understand those areas and can perceive and engage along those lines you will then come to appreciate NNRP.

Executive Summary

There is a utility process, framework, and epistemology that can enable and empower your organization to perceive and engage the unified Universe and it is called Elegant Reasonism. Apathetic response will only cede your niche to competition or adversaries for all the reasons cited In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Our solar system and everything in it are intrinsically a part of what is. What once was thought to be evidence must now be mode shifted in order to remain considered so. Over the last several decades civilization organized into compartmentalized specializations and in doing so obfuscated the path forward due in no small part to LEEs Empiricism Trap. Unification demands a multidisciplinary approach across the entire entanglement gradient in both emergent and convergent vectors, if for no other reason than it represents an integration of everything real. Your thinking and actions must be capable of that as well. Part of the point here is that if you are waiting for some mythical person to appear on streaming media news and tell you to go embrace this then by the time you see that broadcast the struggle will be over. What is needed right now is transformational leadership, a degree of intrepidity, and more than several mavericks. This is not about sharpening this or that tool, it fundamentally repopulates your tool box.

Reality is more ancient and vast than current estimates reflect. There is ample time for material to traverse the unified Universe. Limits have been dismantled. The spacetime-mass interface has evaporated to reveal the wonders of architectural mass. Just as wondrous is the insight that not just the process configuring these architectures but those that limit them conspire to create concepts and structures which manifest physical properties, behaviors, and everything real. You either perceive that unification or you don’t and if you don’t then you have a great deal of work to do, or someone is going to do it for you – to their benefit. Action matters.



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #UnifiedUniverse #GUT #JWST #Universe #BigBang #Entanglement #Severance #ArchitectureOfMass


By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: