Denial 06Denial

Triggers LEEs Empiricism Trap

Psychology Today reports denial is a defense mechanism in which an individual refuses to recognize or acknowledge objective facts or experiences. It’s an unconscious process that serves to protect the person from discomfort or anxiety. For example, a loved one may insist that she doesn’t have a problem with alcohol, despite the fact that it interferes with work and family life. Or a loyal employee may refuse to see signs that his boss is stealing from the company. The concept arose from the work of Sigmund Freud, whose daughter, Anna Freud, developed the idea of defense mechanisms, unconscious strategies whereby people protect themselves from anxious thoughts or feelings. Anna believed that denial unconsciously protected the ego from discomfort and distress by rejecting aspects of reality itself. Denial was primarily used in childhood and adolescence, she believed, and could be damaging when employed regularly in adulthood. Although many of Freud’s ideas have been disproven, psychologists today still believe that defense mechanisms like denial are a valid concept.

And then we get to the subject of unification and find that denial is alive, well, and rampant across all of science. Despite Schrodinger’s cat having died. Despite the inability to employ a geometric basis point for a given construct invalidates it as a geometry of anything real (no matter how many logical assertions can be made using the concept). Despite the implications of understanding that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different in reality. The clues go on, and on. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe, and therein lay the source of its truth concerning what is real, and what is virtual (e.g. logical in nature). The point here is that there are clues all over the place, but we have for the last century or so rationalized them all away. Once you fight through your journey to the precipice where you can perceive and engage the unified Universe, then turn around to look at what you had to slog through you too will see these clues absolutely everywhere. They become evident in the journey to the precipice and we are here to help you get there.

The Final Arbitor

The unified Universe is the final arbiter. There are two vectors in which to contemplate the unified Universe. From where we are now backwards to the instant of creation (e.g. convergence) and from that instant out to what we have now (e.g. emergence). We may consider a line between the two something of a gradient between them, and in the case of The Emergence Model, we call that gradient: the entanglement gradient. The precipice of the unified Universe is a special place. There we expect both ends of the entanglement gradient to fully comply with what we call the realm of c’s and from both vectors emergence and convergence. Simultaneous with that requirement we must also have a means to take everything we think we know and have some mechanism or process to align it with the unified Universe (and back again) so that we might explain to others how our insights were developed. So, they may in turn validate and replicate our results. Elegant Reasonism is the means to do exactly that, by design, and do it to internationally accepted standards and established ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards and US National Performance Excellence Program standards.

The concept of unification demands the credible capability to manifest everything real in fully compliant context of the above paragraph, including philosophy itself. We invite everyone to fully inspect the cogent description of M5 and make your own determination of whether or not it accomplishes that mission. Don’t take our word for it. Inspect it yourself. We have every confidence that you will come to the same ultimate conclusion we did. When we begin such contemplation we are forced to realize that the encapsulated interpretative model (EIM) accomplishing such a feat must simultaneously reconcile 100% of all incongruities and without exception. There is a great deal to unpack in these several sentences, least of which is real vs just logically correct. Unfortunately there is neither the time nor real estate on this page to unpack all of that. There may not be enough on this entire website, but we can provide an introduction and enough material to get you to your area of interest. Our mission is to provide you the tools for you to carry on from here and build on what we started.

Everything real is a system or system of systems. ~ Charles C McGowen

Domains of Discourse

When we say everything real that only indirectly includes the unreal or virtually created constructs in as much as those must be instantiated by something real. Philosophically we divide studies or investigations into ‘thought domains’, but when we step back from that we are forced to realize that unification requirements demand we place those contemplations on the same gradient; whether they are manifestations of our central nervous systems (CNS) and brains, (only), or whether they are naturally real. That is to say something created by nature and not a function of anthropogenic activity. Major schools of study in every bastion of institutionalized academia is divided in this manner, so students do not become overwhelmed by information and study requirements. One can not, after all, eat an entire elephant in one sitting.

Detail Sets

Taxonomically, here, detail sets are areas of specialization within a given domain of discourse.

The Foundation That Can Not Be Denied

Denial 07
Denial – a refusal to accept, because one does not hear as they listen

Any critical review of our website will illuminate FAQs behind many of the informational pages to help people understand how we leveraged Elegant Reasonism to produce the results or insights we did. We remind everyone that insights absent cognition of the process used to derive them will fall on deaf ears and minds. Because the current state of affairs is such that many, if not most, do not yet understand Elegant Reasonism or its implications early adopters have their work cut out for them. We can not encourage strongly enough to recognize denial not ony in others but within ourselves, in order that we might communicate better and more effectively. We have a number of presentations that might help in that regard. We usually make it a point to suggest team leaders conduct their affairs transformationally.

So, why is it that what we did can not be denied? The fact is you can deny it, many do, but the essential point we are making is that it won’t stop anything. Unification is here to stay. Once you have worked to gain the precipice yourself where you perceive and can engage the unified Universe the elation slowly gives way to the realization that you now have to do what we are working to do – explain it to others. Part of what we are doing here is providing you the benefit our learning. Two things are accomplished when we do that. One is that the community grows and the other factor is an ever more solid group of peers with which to review material. Both are worthy causes, goals and objectives. All that’s great but we didn’t answer the question yet: why can what we did not be stopped? The short answer is that what we did answers questions the status quo can’t begin to answer. In providing those answers historical, perhaps traditional, answers are swept clean and fully illuminated to complete illustration in fully compliant context of the unified Universe. For example: ask an ardent supporter who believes spacetime is real why they can not employ a real common geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference. What you will get is some diatribe rationalization that very often delves into multidimensional reality, multiverses, quantum mechanics, scale, etc. If you want to make them angry point out that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that hard cold fact is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here and that the implication of that hard cold fact establishes that their premise is not real. That premise is absolutely logically correct, but it is not real (e.g. it is virtual – i.e. a logical model of the underlying real system). Strategically at issue is that this hard cold fact precludes accomplishing unification as a matter of philosophy (e.g. no model so based will ever close to unification). Therefore, Elegant Reasonism employs unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there. Because by then you are so focused on the bark of the trees that you miss the forest.  The next major issue is something Stephen Hawking called: ‘fully coupling reference frames’. Essentially all that means is that all those real objects previously discussed must be able to characterize all forces acting on them within those same reference frames. Ironically doing that also requires employment of that same real, and very common, geometric basis point; which we just pointed out the status quo can not employ. Does that make them wrong? No, absolutely not. But it does make them only logically correct.

Not until we apply modern systems engineering practices, principles, and practices to the situation do we realize that one can characterize something in a perfectly logically correct manner, yet that underlying reality remains different from the characterization provided. That’s when the full implication that what Albert Einstein created is absolutely 100% logically correct yield the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice from which we may both perceive and engage the unified Universe. The reason the Elegant Reasonism train has left its proverbial railway station is that we now have the capability to put models of reality next to one another, explain the process, take people through the process decision checkpoint flowchart and navigate to a fully compliant treatise completely aligned with the unified Universe. This does of course mean that we must shed our old ways and brave the new worlds ahead. Consequently our strategy is simple. We are not going to declare anything. What we are going to do is educate everyone who wishes to learn. Ardent deniers are ultimately going to be overwhelmed by a vast army of those who comprehend the implications of what we have been saying. One of those presentations we provided mode shifts the now decades old ‘baloney detection kit’ in an effort to assist communications become more effective. The caution is that before anyone cast any assertions of baloney that we make sure those baloney shoes are not on our own feet.


Here’s a rhetorical test. On a clean writing surface, with your writing instrument in your hand, depict and otherwise illustrate the spacetime continuum, without your instrument ever touching or coming into contact in any way the surface being used to communicate the construct. You see that very first instant of contact is the geometric basis of your illustration. If you don’t have that basis or starting point, it is very difficult to depict. When you realize that the spacetime-mass interface philosophically relegates all EIMs where it is manifest to a logical realm, it is no longer necessary to pursue that point of discussion (pun intended). Failure of such are noted as logic artifacts and inventoried for reconciliation by EIMs that do in fact close to unification. M5 reconciles geometric basis because any MBP or set of them may act in that regard in any Event Frame.

Rhetorical Questions

Q: Can you close the premise of your thinking with the unified Universe?

Q: Do you understand why the notion of the multiverse is dead?

Q: Can you easily illuminate why, not what happens, but why Newton’s Laws are true?

Q: Prove spacetime is real such that it philosophically reconciles the Big Bang, BX442, black hole growth, rapid expansion, infinite compression, GLASS-z12, and fully explains inflation in context of warping.

Familial Surroundings

Deniers will work overtime within their respective details sets supporting their familial domains of discourse in an effort to obfuscate the truth you are trying to communicate. In short they are blinded by past successes. Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. By design that means it will automatically integrate any improved methods to discern that truth. Others will be able to duplicate those results in that same context using the scientific method. LEEs Empiricism Trap takes especial note of the pitfalls of the epistemology we call empiricism.

Consequently you will see many notable “experts” today retreating into their familial surroundings and passionately characterizing the mysteries in some rational means. There is no need to call anyone out by name, you will know who they are when you see them and hear what they have to say. Failure to close to unification will be your first clue. The passion of denial may be another. If you confront them and dig into these areas their rationalization will fall apart. Blinded by past successes they will tell you that real common geometric basis points are not needed and they will redefined geometry so the science does not employ them. McGowen has had personal attacks, character assassination attempts, and more. He remains undeterred. Newsflash, geometric basis is the point. Valid geometry requires a real starting point. Turn that sentence around and think about what that says about geometry that doen’t have one or can not employ one. Why people do this has more to do with their lack of vision relative to the paradigm stack they have inculcated as their belief system than the epistemological truth before them. Now, having said that there are many epistemologies, including Elegant Reasonism and the source of truth for each is distinct. The point being the objective of the truth you seek. Taking Elegant Reasonism as a superset epistemology allows you the maneuvering room necessary to compare and contrast those other epistemologies relative to the unified Universe. The corollary might be to place some other epistemology as a superset to see if it can integrate, for example, all of the sciences better than say, empiricism. We might follow up such examinations with the ability to avoid Langer Epistemology Errors and evade falling prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap. Consequently it is not then surprising that individuals highly invested in status quo positions would likely transition through standard stages of grief dealing and coping with the associated paradigm shifts necessary in order to gain the precipice enabling them to perceive and engage the unified Universe.

Certain? No, Confident? Yep

A wide array of professionals have reviewed our original systems review and subsequent materials. Not a single one could invalidate what we did. In fact the predominant message from the entire set was that no one would ever would. We’ll leave that to history to judge. We are working to place all our notes, work, and conclusions online for your scrutiny and review. One anecdotal insight that in hindsight is somewhat humorous is that when we realized that what we had done accomplished the unification of physics, we went back to see how old those notes were we were reviewing. Those notes were over 24 months old. We had accomplished unification two years before we recognized what we had done. It took another two years for the broader implications to begin making themselves known. Now, in hindsight, it is clear that unification is a tapestry inclusive of everything real and every domain of discourse. Unification is very much not the domain of any single discipline of science. By definition it must include them all, and simultaneously so.

Down Denial’s Road

The shear volume of material requiring mode shifting is clearly intimidating. Half the battle is knowing something can be done. Unification has been accomplished, and so while that particular quest is over – communicating it is not. That battle rages on. Circa February, 2020, some people still believed the Earth was flat and were willing to die trying to prove it. Consequently it will come as no surprise that there will be some who, blinded by past successes, will never acknowledge that their manner of contemplation will never close to unification. We’re OK with that. Our train will however, pull away from the proverbial station without them. Richard P Feynman makes the point that if you have two theories which both are simultaneously logically correct, agree with experiment that there is no way in science to distinguish which theory is correct, and his statement stands. The new questions we can now ask though is: Which one closes to unification and which has greater affinity with the unified Universe. Those are questions Elegant Reasonism was designed to answer. They are also questions that those thoroughly entrenched and ensnared within the logic trap that is M1 or M2, can never answer. How to employ a real, common, geometric basis point, for all real objects in the same frame of reference for example. Perchance they begin elaborating on inertial frames, ask them to fully couple that inertial frame to the rest of the unified Universe. You might want to go grab something to eat while they rationalize their answer.

Mode Shifting The Baloney Detection Kit

As we mentioned above, we mode shifted the traditional baloney detection kit and is one of the available presentations. LEEs Empiricism Trap can be quite insidious if for no other reason than one can do everything absolutely logically correct. Correct except asking whether or not what you are doing closes to unification. If performed in a traditionally correct manner your results likely dovetail with what modern science says you ought to get. The problem is that it does not close.  Perhaps more importantly is that if it is based on M1 or M2, it never will.

A number of years ago a psychology lab in England ran a double blind test on the Schrodinger wave function. They concluded that his cat died and the concept is a logical construct and does not exist in reality. Their test was published as The Death of Schrodinger’s Cat. Despite these findings do you think the physics community recognized those results? If you said no, you would be correct. The science community at large is essentially in denial. Another group in Geneva Switzerland conducted Bell Inequality Experiments Testing Spooky Action At A Distance. Their experiment suggested that the speed of entanglement potentially exceeds 54 times the speed of light, but that’s impossible right? That’s what everyone told that group after they finished and published their findings. Everyone essentially blew them off. Why? Because every interferometer experiment on the planet always reported the same velocity for the speed of light. This is so true that civilization has claimed it as a constant. All of which is interesting right up to the point you mode shift all of these various factors and experiments. The result is that the constant ‘c’ mode shifts from the speed of light to a concept in The Emergence Model called Severance and many things suddenly are instantly reconciled. One of those factors is all of the spectroscopy data generated by Edwin P Hubble and all of his successors no longer measures expansion of dimensionless nothing but the Rapidity of cosmological photons. We should also point out that Rapidity mode shift to mean velocity over Severance. When you think about photons in EFPS1 that makes perfect common sense, alas I digress.

Dissecting Techniques of Denial (Science or otherwise)

This is a topic much discussed. We linked one good article from the graphic below. There is an underlying, almost insidious, assumption in all of this in as much as it 1) ignores commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), 2) because of No 1, does not realize the implications of LEEs Empiricism Trap, 3) none of the issues raised on this graphic have the slightest clue how they are impacted by mode shifting associated science into alignment with the unified Universe. Let’s briefly discuss some of these issues. These issues and more are one set of reasons we took a pass at creating Presentation ERIO03.


Common in all forms of communication is the need to establish a common, foundational, basis of understanding. Most scientists traditionally employ empiricism for this purpose. It is not that empiricism is not correct, good, or is bad in some manner. We simply need to understand what it is and how tied to human physiology it is. Empiricism is necessary, but insufficient to gain the precipice of unification and creates something of a caution in context of avoiding LEEs Empiricism Trap. About here is where many people get confused and that confusion is directly associated with commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Alright let’s try and bring these issues together into a cogent discussion. If I were to ask you: “Why are Newton’s Laws true?”, your reply might be to cite the formulas we were all taught in school for one of the three laws:

The problem with all of this is that it assumes that the context made manifest by the foundational Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) does not change EIM to EIM, and that presumption is false. Moving beyond the obvious points, what is not so obvious is that the answers to the standard root cause analysis questions change EIM to EIM. Not that they individually change necessarily but the question they are answering shifts to a different question. In this example we asked ‘why’ Newton’s Laws were true. Working through Elegant Reasonism‘s processes and methods, completing the necessary aspects of the technological framework in order to effectively enable mode shifting so we might navigate the process decision checkpoint flowchart to positive affect what we find is that the (perhaps) traditional answer doesn’t answer the ‘why’ question but the ‘what and how’ questions. The mode shifted ‘why’, is made plainly obvious by the cogent description of M5. And in this effort we learn something in hindsight about the nature of encapsulation which explains why one EIM‘s nature can not be discerned from within the confines of another. That recognition must be objectified external to the EIMs involved and that is one reason why Elegant Reasonism is designed as it is. This is also why those who tend to desire to make small tweaks inevitably fail. The entire EIM set of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/Ns) must be gang switched EIM to EIM simultaneously and therein lay the necessary rigor required here. Literalists be warned. What is on paper is not the only thing which must switch along with that effort. What is between your ears and how you think about it must also change. This means paradigms must shift dynamically and conversationally. That, for some, is a tall order, but if you can develop that skill it will serve you immensely.

The very real point here in this article is mode shifting the chart immediately above, will almost certainly completely change your perspective on who it is that might be wearing those baloney shoes. Susanne K Langer once said that with new insights comes a whole new world of questions. She could not have been more correct. Albert Einstein once said we can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them. He was more correct than he knew. People seem to be running around all over the place claiming that Einstein thought mass was variant, and well – that’s just wrong. He did not believe that, and Dr. Lev B Okun did a good job explaining that history. Who said what is not the point. The point is understanding how what people said impacts a given EIM and whether or not that warrants spawning an incremental iteration of a given EIM or not, in order to mode shift effectively between it and the inventory of recognized EIMs. Okun’s insights segregated M1 from M2.


One final point. Unification is about the integration of the capability required in order to manifest everything real. Noodle on that a minute. That’s a tall order. We really don’t care if you do or don’t like The Emergence Model. The fact is that at that moment it is the only EIM which closes to unification. If you can come up with a better EIM then fabulous, go for it. Any net new EIM which also closes to unification can instantly be integrated into Elegant Reasonism and help satisfy the requirement that at least one EIM out of the plurality required of all investigations close to unification. The more employed that do, only surrounds reality more effectively. Proceeding in this manner helps us to not cross that fine line between characterizing what we believe and what reality is. We never want to be stuck behind LEEs Gate.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights from the precipice of the unified Universe. Sic’em.

Shop Now!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification

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: