Virtual Reality Worlds OnlineVirtual Reality Worlds Online

Virtual Reality Worlds

Thousands upon thousands of people love entering these various virtual worlds online for all sorts of entertainment reasons. None of them are real. They exist inside those information systems for their respective purposes and missions. Sometimes they are games and allow the characters therein to gain capabilities that are beyond reality. Use your imagination for that. Nothing new here right? Those VRWs employ mathematical equations so that the characters obey rules. Complicated formulas are called algorithms, but by any other name they are math. Does the formula change because your character gains some new capability? The formula doesn’t usually change but the parameter values do.  Which ones and by how much depends on the capability gained in the game. This is not new either if you’ve been around  block with any of these environments.

Here’s where it gets very tricky.

Niels Bohr Quote
Matter is Described Through Interactions & Relationships
Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs from page 74 in her 1948 book Philosophy In A New Key

What did they just say?

What they just said was that the human central nervous system (CNS) automatically furnishes our brains abstractions in order to cope and deal with the real world around us. Physicists and other scientists do not work directly with reality, rather they work with abstractions of it.  Crossing that fine line of distinction constitutes commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).  That is to say if you mistake an abstraction for actual reality you are committing a fatal epistemological error. There is a very fine line between declaration of describing actual reality and reflecting what we think that reality is. Herein we work very hard to reflect what we think reality is and we do that through Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). We use tools like the ISO 9001 Unification Tool to inventory abstractions across all EIMs employed in a given investigation.

Does this mean you don’t exist? Of course not. You are as real as that rock or board next to your foot. What it does mean is that those terms; rock, board, foot, atom, electron, proton, neutron, quarks, etc. are all lables in context of information sciences and they all represent abstractions. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Fundamental foundational abstractions represent highly systemic constructs on which every other abstraction is made manifest. The distinction between all those virtual reality worlds and what essentially is the realm of physics abstracted in an attempt to understand reality are the values it measures and how it accomplishes that. We gain access to the proverbial keys to the kingdom when we realize that what Albert Einstein created beginning about 1905 was absolutely 100% logically correct because therein lay the strategic clue necessary to gain the precipice of unification.

The Universe (e.g. Reality) Is Unified

Regardless of whether or not your thinking about it is or not. The point is that status quo thinking since ancient times has never been able to articulate the unified Universe. No human has ever done that until we did it. Yep, been there done that. Pretty cool too. We see and understand things nobody else has any clue about. Guess what, we’re going to show you how this works so you can gain that precipice yourself and you too will be able to perceive and engage the unified Universe. It requires comprehension of something we call Elegant Reasonism and the implications of a model that process produced. There’s a lot to digest in the sentence characterizing what this is, so please take your time to understand it. Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological  framework supporting an epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) to close to unification: The Emergence Model. We have unpacked this sentence countless times elsewhere on this website so we’re not doing it again here. We have also shown you Richard P Feynman explaining the implications of multiple theories that are simultaneously true, have all consequences identical, and all of which agree with experiment that there is no way in science to tell which theory, at that level, is ‘right’. Well, now we have more tools in our tool box and perhaps gain insights not previously available. Interesting video that essentially makes the case that correlation does not necessarily equate to causality. Something to be keenly aware of. Just because you have logical congruence does not necessarily mean you are reflecting reality. What you may be doing is reflecting congruence to your EIM and reality supports that reflection but there may also be twelve other reflections just as congruent. What we need to do is surround reality with as many different EIMs as is possible in order to discern its true nature. That’s what Elegant Reasonism is fundamentally all about.

Insights Absent Awareness Of The Process

If I walked into a room and made the statement that this or that could travel faster than the speed of light by upwards of 54 times the velocity of light you most likely would declare me a kook and kick me out. If I then presented a paper that quantified and codified experimentally data illuminating and illustrating that point you would think there was something somewhere wrong with those experiments. Interestingly I give you: Spooky Action At A Distance Tested, a paper trying to understand the speed of entanglement. Registered Users who are approved can read that paper. Registration is free and you are not obligated to anything nor do we sell your information (See policies).

But wait, we have scads and scads of experimental data using interferometers of a variety of types which unanimously all report exactly the same results!! There must be a glitch in those Bell Inequality Tests!! Right? Well… no, not really. Here’s why. The very first thing we need to understand here is those experiments, notably the MichelsonMorley interferometer experiment which had been done some seven years prior to Einstein publishing his first paper, were what motivated Einstein’s thinking. What Einstein created was a model with rules. A model just exactly like those illustrated above, with the notable exception that their values were experimentally derived. The mistake then, and now, were the commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) as pointed out by Richard P Feynman. We thought we had been looking at actual reality, and in one sense we were, but what we were really doing was examining the abstractions reflecting that reality. What we did not comprehend at the time was that reality (e.g. M6) could support more than one simultaneously logically correct view. Thus we have simultaneous truths being depicted by M1, M2 and M5. The only relevant point here is that of those three EIMs only M5 closes to unification.

Simplistically here is the situation. Electrons emit photons due to centripetal force at a measured velocity. This is confirmed with a device called a Synchrotron. Basically it is a particle accelerator which only contains electrons. No nuclei are present. These devices cajole electrons to emit photons in the same manner as Free Electron Lasers being developed commercially. That is to say they use magnetic fields to exert centripetal force on the electrons and the photon is emitted. Characterizing that emission changes EIM to EIM. Under M1 we must apply Einstein’s rules. Most folks are familiar with the statement “nothing can go faster than the speed of light”, what they are less familiar with is why that is true beyond the superficially obvious. M5 has different rules, insights, and observations and there electrons still emit photons and at that same velocity measured by the interferometers but the distinction is that is a local phenomena that is a function of the respective and relative architectures of mass involved in that Event Frame. The cogent description of M5, a paragraph that had to be reverse engineered from our decade long original systems review, vindicates Edwin P Hubble cosmologically and those Bell Inequality Tests as well as those guys looking for Neutrinos.


Registered users here will instantly be granted access to the full network presence we are working to bring to bear on helping others comprehend and wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally. That access is under our general license and is free of charge. We make our money if that knowledge is applied in revenue generating activities and then we charge a small transaction fee consistent with credit card transactions for businesses. Assuming you are registered then all the links above will resolve past site security. The rest of the article will discuss concepts with that assumption in mind. If they don’t work for you, then register and they will.

Sagan on being humble
Sagan on being humble

What happens when we mode shift these various scenarios through the utility process and technological framework of Elegant Reasonism we find that M5 fits all experimental data from the astronomical sciences, HST, and JWST data gathered to date. It vindicates Hubble and kills some of the M1 derived theories, notably the Inflationary theory. Another insight that emerges from mode shifting these issues concerns what constitutes “the unified Universe”. M5 allows us to characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang and in doing so makes note that what is inside our particle horizon is very likely not all that is. That observation is based on those ‘statistical circles’ in the WMAP data. We have an idea what those are and the implications of them. The known universe grows in size and its actual size will need to be reviewed by everyone so we can get a better handle on z-factor normalization as mode shifted, but that only concerns the material inside our particle horizon. That material is “our” little part of the unified Universe. “The” unified Universe is unknowably vast and significantly dwarfs our particle horizon into essentially oblivion and irrelevance.  The high level implication here is that the unified Universe is ancient in the extreme and locally potentially orders of magnitude larger than we thought it was. Those insights immediately reconcile objects noted like BX442 in the HST Ultra Deep Field Images and the more recent JWST images.

So you still think all this is ‘not physics’ or is gobbledygook? The mode shifted Baloney Detection Kit takes the Martin Luther King approach and looks for the content of the character present and not the cover of the book or man. Do you think people without letters behind their name are incapable of thought? If you do then maybe you ought to go learn about people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Oliver Heaviside. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. Then maybe, just maybe, you might want to check the shoes on your own feet. If you can not articulate the unified Universe then perhaps you may have stepped in some baloney along the way.

We have no desire or intention of casting any stones here or in anything we do because everyone alive today has committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) without exception anywhere. All we are trying to do is illuminate a path we see stretching out into the darkness before us all. We have a pretty good idea about what we are not good doing. We think most of you guys are probably better at figuring some of this out than we are. Once folks grasp what we did and how, stuff will be mode shifted faster than anyone can likely keep up. When that begins we will open up our systems for other authors to contribute. We would prefer that and have as one of our missions to make this site the key place for peer reviewed investigations. But we have to develop the community capable of accomplishing that mission first. The first step of which is for you to register here. Perhaps some of you would like to help us integrate the content from our original systems review. We are few and you guys are many. We are just trying to survive long enough to reach critical mass of others that understand all this and will wield it responsibly and transformationally.


The plurality of logical correctness is not something to fear. Systems Engineers deal and cope with this every day, day in and day out. Once we understand that there is almost always more than one physical way to do something and that logical models are usually more precise than physical ones we need skilled practitioners to sort out all the chaos and that’s where organizatinos like the International Council on Systems Enginerring (INCOSE) may offer pointers to skills and resources. The fact that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different gives more than a few people headaches.

Part of the objective of Elegant Reasonism is to surround reality with differing EIM reflections of it to better understand how it accomplishes what it does and is. That’s why Elegant Reasonism rules demand a plurality of EIMs be used in any given investigation. There is no requirement that M5 specifically be employed, only that at least one EIM employed closes to unification. If anyone can come up with a better EIM than M5, knock yourself out – go for it. We don’t wanna do that again. It was hard the first time. Besides, its your turn now.


Newsletter Signup



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #VirtualReality #Worldview #Reality #unifiedUniverse #INCOSE


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: