Neils Bohr abstractionsNeils Bohr on abstractions


Instantiation is a word we need to use more often. It implies the question: how? in our discussions. We can espouse equations, like F=ma which some will recognize as one of Newton’s Laws, but then we must ask how does that work and how does that equation imply that work? What are the mechanics behind that equation? We see equations like E=mc2 and historically at least we understand its importance. nuclear binding energy, the energy required to separate an atomic nucleus completely into its constituent protons and neutrons, or, equivalently, the energy that would be liberated by combining individual protons and neutrons into a single nucleus. For example, the nucleus of the hydrogen isotope deuterium, which is composed of one proton and one neutron, can be separated completely by supplying 2.23 million electron volts (MeV) of energy. Conversely, when a slowly moving neutron and proton combine to form a deuterium nucleus, 2.23 MeV are liberated in the form of gamma rays. The total mass of the bound particles is less than the sum of the masses of the separate particles by an amount equivalent (as expressed in Einstein’s mass–energy equation, E = mc2) to the binding energy. The difference between the mass of the bound and separate particles is called the mass defect. Stepping back then from that latter equation we are rhetorically forced to ask if nothing can go faster than the speed of light, why then are you allowed to square that number in that equation? Is that not a violation of your own rules? Remember, the ends do not justify the means. The challenge then is putting all this into context. The superficial arguments manifest from such questions, perhaps ironically, are not suggesting that Einstein was wrong in any sense. Rather, what is being suggested is that the model Einstein created beginning in 1905 was absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. We expect congruence within logically correct systems. The issue is that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different in real systems. Layer that against implications and ramifications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) which occur when abstractions are erroneously mistaken for actual reality and a one way ticket into something we call LEEs Empiricism Trap presents itself.

Chemical Bond Angles
Chemical Bond Angles

The cogent description of M5 introduces something of a new term: instantiate (and its grammatical variants for those purists out there). Communications between any two people requires a common foundation of understanding. Early explorers encountering new peoples and cultures would exchange objects, use language and point to some object or phenomena so that the new language could be exchanged and understood. It was a difficult challenge to do this and keep all parties civil enough to establish a dialog. Circa 2022, civilization finds itself firmly entrenched within LEEs Empiricism Trap. Consequently a new phenomena is recognized in unification’s wake in as much as investigative teams operating in context and compliance of Elegant Reasonism will find themselves the first people on Earth to understand the contextual implications and ramification of their mission relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Insights may come fast and furious. Ordinarily they might get very excited and call meetings to keep stakeholders informed of their discovery. Tactically at issue here is whether or not those stakeholders are fully cognizant of Elegant Reasonism, because if they are not – your newly discovered insights will fall on deaf minds. You will get that ‘deer in headlights’ stare in return for your exuberance. Communications regarding insights must be accompanied by the means with which they were gained. Otherwise communications will fail.

Very often philosophical discussions of nature (e.g. science) will use the word force as if it were a noun rather than a verb. Under The Emergence Model the term force is the work product instantiated by the intrinsic action of architectural mass interacting within an Event Frame. Humorously this article here reminds me of a young person following their parent constantly asking why questions and the parent being exhausted and exasperated. Mode shifting these environments and situations demands a level of rigor, persistence, perseverance, and critical situational awareness as to the foundational source (e.g. sourcing EIM) of a particular abstraction or set of them. The chart to the right here illustrates chemical bond angles and different architectural distinctions that investigators might discern them more easily.

Rhetorically, if we asked you to instantiate why those angles were as they are, how would you answer? Before you cite the normal textbook (e.g. traditional) answer we remind you about Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). LEEs occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality and commission of such mistakes is epistemologically fatal. There are several reasons we are not going to provide you the answer to this question. First is that the dipiction of the atoms is that of a point mass rather than a complex composite architectural construct possessing mass, and there is a great deal of R&D still needed into exactly what that architecture looks like (much less how it behaves or manifests properties). We do know enough to point out deficiencies in the illustration and the illustration, to be fair, was not designed for the purpose it finds itself here.

We could ask a similar question about Newton’s Laws and why they are true; which we have done elsewhere on this website already. See EMCS01 for those individual laws or posts containing those discussions. The question is answering such questions in order to enable effective mode shifting in order to affect navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart. Part of the strategic issue here is that the answers to standard root cause analysis questions change whole columns EIM to EIM. What we mean by that is if each of those standard questions represented a column and each law were a row in that table the answers to why they were true would be different in some manner EIM to EIM. Interestingly the answers in this case to M1’s why becomes M5’s what and why becomes the means for instantiation.

LEE’s Insidious Nature

Those firmly ensnared within the grip and grasp of LEEs Empiricism Trap, who believe they are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it, once they strike the vein of contextual coherence made manifest by their Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) they are made to believe they have arrived at their solution and insight. Powerful as what they accomplished might be, if it can not be shown clear evidence chains anchored within the unified Universe it is necessary but insufficient to gain the precipice of unification for what they did was but a first step on the path, and they should not have stopped where they did. The quicksands of logical correctness mired them ever deeper within the snare that is LEEs Empiricism Trap. Strategically at issue is whether a given investigation is anchored within an EIM which is incapable of closing to unification, or the unified Universe. To be clear that evidence chain may indeed go through a logically correct model in order to get to reality but reality must instantiate the logical view in a manner that clearly illuminates and illustrates the unified Universe and if it does not then those investigators have a great deal more work to do. Perhaps a great deal more than they expected or bargained for. Perhaps the most insidious factor regarding LEEs is their predilection for creating circumstances where investigators erroneously believe they have achieved success when they are almost there, but need to make it through that final push.

There Is Then A Fine Line of Distinction

Langer New Knowledge
Langer New Knowledge

It is plausible then to have a logically correct Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) but the distinction is in our critical situational awareness in as much as we understand we are not declaring what reality is; rather, we are are characterizing how from the point of view of this particular EIM reality instantiates that EIM. Systems Engineering provides the principles, practices, processes, and profession to help others sort all this out. Langer may have bespoken the understatement of the millennia when she referred to  needing new questions. Part of the point we have made all along is that you can’t fix something if you do not recognize that it is broken. Once you know it is broken it then becomes incumbent on understanding in what way it is broken (e.g. how). Our original systems review notes are online for your critical review, as are the utility process employing its technological framework. Once one understands the dimensions and character of the problem at hand the salient value of what we have done and how we did it then begin to deliver value to you and your organization. You are then on the path to the precipice of unification. Stick with it and you will persevere.


The Emergence Model

Holistically The Emergence Model, as an overarching, fully cmpliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) is represented by two views if you will, each of which are EIMs in their own right; M5 is the logical view, and M6 is the real view. For reasons we are not getting into here the majority of the discussion will be about the cogent description of M5 and not M6. As a civilization we have a great deal more maturing to do before those M6 discussions can be had in order to develop them. Right now just know that The Emergence Model, as defined, requires both M5 and M6, and where M6 instantiates M5. Both M5 and M6 are fully compliant with the realm of c’s and Elegant Reasonism Rules.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

We had to recite the above paragraph in preamble to the point about instantiating complex composite architectures of mass. Under other EIMs the chemical bond angle chart above is only empirically derived through normal practices. Where that approach begins to stumble is in the realm of biology which leads directly to Eugene Wignor‘s paper below on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. The issue these investigators are dancing around is how organic matter is instantiated from the inorganic. What natural process leads to that advent.  Under The Emergence Model‘s cogent description of M5 leads us into an in-depth systems review of Knot Theory, documented in our original systems review notes, is rich enough in configuration permutations to manifest everything real.  Available on this website is enough information to get your feet wet within these domains of discourse and their constituent detail sets.

Kinetic Architectures

Kinetic Architectures
Kinetic Architectures

Part of the issue illustrating point mass vs architectures of complex composite architectures is that they do not illuminate the imagination to potential solutions. Thermodynamics, conservation laws, etc must be instantiated. Quantum rotors are a prime example of a means to preserve energy within a complex discontinuous composite architecture.

One only needs basic awareness of engineering structures to understand how different configurations would change where Severance values were. Consequently it is veryimportant to conduct research into the various specific architectures comprising the various constructs manifesting the respective phenomena we reflect in science. What we know is that Knot Theory configuration permutations is more than rich enough to instantiate every conceivable configuration. What we know from Knot Theory is that it is also discontinuous which means that different configurations will vary in terms of density and saturation relative to other configurations. That fact alone can accommodate and account for characterization distinctions between say for example dark matter and regular matter.

Euler’s mathematical functions provide the means for emergence of phenomena like polarization, convergence, and more, all instantiated via Knot Theory in full context of the cogent description of M5. The insight here led to the observation that convergence leads to polarization for many, if not most, and perhaps all configurations. The point here is that it allows for Graviton polarization along the gradients of high mass – low mass and in that context ultimately led to the Bang to Bang insights because it explains galactic acceleration. Just one of hundreds of concepts tested and reconciled. In fact every concept we tested was reconciled. We never had one fail to reconcile. Consequently we decided to leave those other tests for others to follow up on.

The Basic Processes

Einstein Letter
Einstein stating his belief that mass is invariant.

The cogent description of M5 derives its fundamental basis from the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs). Two fundamental processes so derived are The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by the other Severance. Configuring with at most two other MBPs each, the initial entanglements form strings, which form line or rope segments, which intern form knots, which in turn form increasing orders of complexities ultimately forming everything real. Configuration saturation and density factors in context of the architectures determine all physical properties and interaction phenomena. Do not presume phenomena imply discrete configuration. It became clear early on that many if not most particles are actually hybrids. This means any given particle may be comprised of normal components and / or dark components (e.g. constituent components that don’t interact in familial manners). The photon is construed to be a hybrid particle, for example. Configurations between individual MBPs and the set of recognized known particles are generally classed as Preons. For example protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks, but if you add the masses of those quarks they only account for some 3% of the mass of their parent particle, the remaining 97% of the mass here (e.g. under The Emergence Model) is construed as Preonic in nature. In those configurations the Preon structures dampen quark energies which would otherwise destroy the individual quarks due to destructive resonance (e.g. quark resonance unbounded exceeds quark Severance values). What we do not yet understand is the degree to which Preons play across elements of the Periodic Table and we do not because there is much R&D still required. Specific configurations manifesting complex composite architectures of mass remains the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Not until we understood Lev Okun‘s body of work did we really see the schism between those who held different concepts of mass. It seems that popular media was so caught up labeling everything as “this is what Einstein thought”. Actually, no, he did not think mass was variant. Einstein believed mass was invariant and the above letter proves it.

Einstein - Hubble meeting
Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument

So for example this explains why centripetal force is the central force on the electron resulting in emission of a photon, exactly because that photon is otherwise entangled with the electron. Not until that system cascades through EFPS1 is the photon-electron system exceed Severance releasing the photon. Because all photon-electron relationships are essentially identical, all local photons are emitted at exactly the same velocity. That’s why all interferometer experiments produce the same value for the speed of light. That velocity has zip-pity-do-dah to do with any other construct. Consequently when you look at how Einstein describes mass you will notice several factors relevant here. The first are the distinctions segregating M1 from M2, in that under M1 mass is variant and under M2 mass is invariant consistent with Einstein’s personal beliefs as articulated in that letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948. Next requires us to mode shift the speed of light and when we do that we find that the term c is reassigned to mean Severance (which is the reason photons are emitted at their renowned velocity). Consequently cosmological velocities of photons are not bound by interferometer results, contrary too popular assumption; which simultaneously explains interferometer results and vindicates Edwin P Hubble completely. When we understand photon velocity is a function of the system producing the emission (e.g. EFPS1 cascade) we look again at Einstein’s letter to Barnett. Every particle accelerator on Earth performs particle beam alignment using a term called Rapidity (See EMCS01: Concept 0168). Once mode shifted rapidity then becomes velocity over Severance and carries with it an entirely different implication. Ramification of which establish the basis for the Bang to Bang insight.

There is yet another set of circumstances needing reconciliation regarding the Big Bang. Under M1, or M2, in order to reach the current state of what the space sciences experience, observe, and measure something called rapid expansion has to have occurred in the early universe. One problem is the EIMs setting up that requirement do not close to unification. Another problem is that the corollary to rapid expansion is a concept called infinite compression, which is the opposite vector. It is a problem because black holes grow. One can not reconcile that growth with infinite compression. Kill the corollary and you kill the primary assumption. Kill that and you must log a reason to reconsider how you think the big bang happened and whether or not your criteria factors are examples of having committed Langer Epistemology Errors and/or logic artifacts from EIMs that can never philosophically close to unification in the first place. Couple that with the above discussion about red and blue shifts and mode shifting interferometer results and the next shoe to drop dismantles the inflationary theory. This brief outline of insights has a point here and it is that it is not just individual phenomena, or one experiment that must be instantiated. The holistic whole must be instantiated. This was the genesis of the concept of mode shifting. Unification demands nothing less. What is amazing is that here, everything dovetails seamlessly.

These issues do not become fully significant until we more appropriately break down previous preconceived notions. The following article was sidelined because those firmly entrenched in the grips of LEEs Empiricism Trap could not fathom how it did not violate Einstein’s rules that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. However, let us remember that light is a higher ordered construct built by entanglement, and limited by Severance. What is crucial here is not the speed of light, but the speed of entanglement as discussed in this paper whose investigators conducted Bell Inequality Experiments. Those fully ensnared within the confines of M1 and M2‘s logic trap, likely Blinded by Success, declare that there must be something wrong with the experiment. That there must be a glitch somewhere. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! No glitch was ever found but the results were ignored none the less.



Chemical Bonds

The above chart exhibits a few of the geometries associated with chemical bonds. The challenge is to characterize them without using terms like field or force without instantiating specifically how those are instantiated. We don’t mean generally, but specifically and exactly. Know too that you would be required to make that characterization in a manner that spans all scales (e.g. is scale invariant). Many are not aware that Schrödinger’s cat died.

Force without credible instantiation lacks merit to be real. It can be logically correct, but requires instantiation to be considered real. Such distinctions lay betweenM5 and M6, for example. Issues regarding the measurement capabilities come into play and at small scales requires mode shifting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle within a given Event Frame.


Ironically logical systems are more precise than are real systems if only because there is almost always more than one real way to accomplish the same phenomena. That’s why there can be multiple simultaneously true scenarios for exactly the same physics. It is also why Eugene Wigner wrote this article:

Rhetorically we ask if reality instantiates a logical view in the same manner why is it we imbue that as reality, rather than the congruence of the logical view we have of it? Are you quite certain you are not committing cognitive bias because you have congruence with your rationale but is that because you are not asking whether or not it closes to unification? The real question is in what other ways does reality instantiate slightly different logical views. What experiments can we perform to surround reality to discern more clearly how it accomplished that instantiation? Do those logical views used to frame out your questions close to unification? Because if they do not, how does that not constitute Framing Bias?

Newton’s Second Law: F = m a

Rhetorically we ask: Why is this law true?

  • Because it just works (e.g. the mathematics works)? (See Mode Shifting The Baloney Detection Kit)
  • Characterizing why this formula works is a function of the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) manifesting the core constructs whose relationships answer that question. Consequently you will have a different answer under M0, M1, M2, M5, and M6.
    • M0: Is the EIM this formula was originally conceived by Isaac Newton and works well for velocities approaching zero, but fails as velocities approach the speed of light (e.g. Severance).
    • M1: Works here only if underlying abstraction details are ignored. For example: stress and tension across the spacetime-mass interface. Another example ignores the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point required in order to measure acceleration of the mass against which the source of the force applies. Here we must also recognize that mass is variant as a function of velocity approaching the speed of light (e.g. Severance).
    • M2: Works here only if underlying abstraction details are ignored. For example: stress and tension across the spacetime-mass interface. Another example ignores the inability to employ a common real geometric basis point required in order to measure acceleration of the mass against which the source of the force applies. Here we must also recognize that mass is invariant as a function of velocity approaching the speed of light (e.g. Severance) and we must then account for inertia and momentum relativistically.
    • M5 and M6: The cogent descriptions of these EIMs intrinsically demonstrate why that law is true, for example the cogent description of M5 linked here.

One point here are the considerations needed to instantiate the answer. Another point are the abstractions that manifest the relationships and patterns to which the mathematics are applied. The realm of c’s represents yet another set of criteria to which those definitions must also meet, many of those terms begin with the letter ‘c’ hence the set name. Reality model encapsulation creates and otherwise manifests interpretative boundaries between models (e.g. EIMs) preserving the integrity of context made manifest by any particular EIM. For these and many more reasons is why one must avoid tweaking models beyond contextual boundaries. Such activity is considered “out of context”. Many theoretical physicists would then observe that tweak “doesn’t look natural”. There are then three major issues here needing recognition relative to instantiation. One is the degree to which an idea agrees with the context made manifest by any given change. Another is the degree to which the change is fully compliant with the realm of c’s (one of which is closure (e.g. close to unification). The final arbiter of any given change is the degree to which that change aligns with the actual real unified Universe we are attempting to model or reflect.

Investigators must work very hard not to commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). LEEs are perhaps one of the most seductive of errors humans can make, but they represent fatal epistemological thinking.

Interpretative Erosion (e.g. Failure to Instantiate)

Any time an investigator has to elaborately rationalize why they do or do not need some factor represents under Six Sigma approach to quality what is otherwise termed a Sigma Defect and it is logged against the individual EIM manifesting that particular context. Commission of LEEs constitutes such a Sigma Defect and is one reason effectiveness metrics navigating the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) are so important. Critical systems reviews consistent with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards are often necessary in order to demonstrate whether or not one is ensnared within LEEs Empiricism (logic) Trap or not. This is especially true if investigators are required to meet National Performance Excellance Program (NPEP) standards. SolREI INC has publically declared its intent to these various standards and has placed, or is placing, all relevant materials online for any critical review and inspection. All of civilization is our peer review committee. We invite all inspection and very much appreciate those who let us know of any mistakes we have made in the process of that publication. We are happy to let others know where our efforts ended in case they would like to continue a particular thread or perhaps to create an entirely new EIM (e.g. incremental to the set of recognized models).

Einstein on Simplicity of Understanding
Einstein on Simplicity of Understanding

Contextual departure clues are often illuminated by issues of scale. Status quo thinking often employs different reference frames for different types of problems. Consequently proponents will often ask at what scale a given analysis is established. They do this because under the EIMs establishing that context philosophically break outside of that particular scale. Part of what makes it so very daunting attempting to create a net new EIM is that one never knows where a failure to instantiate may arise. This is especially true if you are working on a problem at one scale and wish to declare universal applicability. Very often that would be a fools errand to make such a declaration. We realized in 2011 that what we had done unified physics, but we may have overlooked something. Issues are so difficult to perceive sometimes that in fact, we had actually written down all the criteria to unify physics in 2009, but we didn’t understand what we wrote for right at two years and we worked with it every day during that time. At some point we said well if that’s true then physics has been unified and moved on. Subsequently we began asking questions regarding what that actually means philosophically.



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): The Emergence Model. For those that think such answers are exclusively within the domain of science it would be wise to fully comprehend the implications beyond the superficial of what Richard P Feynman points out in this video of one of his 1950s lectures on Knowing vs Understanding. When there are two theories that are simultaneously correct and all consequences agree with experiments additional criteria must be considered. If that incremental criteria does not come from science, which epistemologically employs (then and today mostly) empiricism, we must consider its philosophical roots. We must never fall prey to Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) by direct declaration of nature lest we fall prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap.



Rhetorically what type of error is Feynman committing in the above video? Why? That question aside, Feynman makes a statement that “Any theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theories for exactly the same physics.” Think about that for a minute. If empiricism alone were the answer then why would there be more than one way to instantiate a given circumstance of physics? Why would reality instantiate those circumstances more than one way? The answer to that question is systems engineering and modern information sciences. Reality is instantiating the abstractions used to reflect it and those abstractions are not actual reality. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. When we ‘tweak’ some aspect of a theory in isolation from the body of the model instantiating the holistic context what we loose are the systemic relationships and pattern changes that flow out across all scales. The implications and ramifications are vital to perceive and it is for that reason Elegant Reasonsism rules are as they are in order for those changes to be held in juxtaposition in order to illuminate them to illustration. Also rhetorically if you can tweak a particular facet, try not tweaking at all but rather iterating it and then juxtaposing the entirety of the context it makes manifest. Better yet why not ask if that holistic whole closes to unification. Iterate it until it does close and does so as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there. We argue herein that “the physics” constitutes the instantiation of reality by an Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM), whose relationships and patterns manifest fundamental foundational context.

Instantiation Clues

Objects like BX442, GLASS-z12, and situations like all galaxies moving away from one another (something astronomers call Galactic Acceleration) and the need for concepts like ‘rapid expansion’ in order for rationalizations of the Inflationary Theory to even work are all clues. If instantiation requires increased elaboration in order to reconcile something rather than pointing directly back to cogent foundations of the EIM then there might be a problem with your EIM. These circumstances drove the creation of The Emergence Model and every single scientific discovery since has only stregthened the model, not weakened it. Case in point were the initial successes of LIGO gravity wave detection.  We find LIGO descriptions of inward spiral, merger, and ringdown analogous to M5‘s EFPS4, EFPS5, and EFPS6. It is worth noting that their first merger of two black holes traversed those phases in less than half a second. Mode shifting all of that is not for the feint of heart. See Bang to Bang.

Ever More Elaborateness

Have you noticed how since 1900 that explanations for phenomena have become ever more elaborate? Einstein‘s warnings resonate even here. Sir Richard Branson points out that anyone can make something complicated, keeping it simple is hard. We would argue Keeping It Simple To The Point of Elegance is even harder. Turns out the only thing distinguishing any type of matter is its architecture. Architecture is what manifests physical properties, behavior, and interaction. In hindsight, its pretty simple. Understanding all that is hard. Dealing and coping with the paradigm shifts between our ears is perhaps even harder.

Core Constructs

Take any Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM), it does not matter which. Do its core constructs facilitate unification? The only acceptable answer is yes or no. There is no other answer. Take a close look at the systems review criteria we call the realm of c’s. We call it that because most of those words begin with that letter. Now, try and sit down and write one single paragraph using proper nouns and verbs fully compliant with those factors and which manifests everything real. That means it must describe everything across every scale of the entanglement gradient, in both emergence and convergence vectors, organic from inorganic, and without exception. That means it must ultimately reconcile all the WMAP data, LIGO, JWST findings, global economics, and even art appreciation no matter how restful the relationship patterns. Unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then its too late to discern necessary philosophical inputs.

Always question the foundation, even if what you are looking at is The Emergence Model. Does it close? Yes it does, but that doen’t mean it is the best or aligns to the unified Universe with the highest affinity. There may be others out there waiting to be written down and explained (e.g. mode shifted). What we have done was hard, and nearly has been the end of us on so many occasions we’ve lost count. We would not wish upon anyone, anywhere, the trials we have had to endure to get even this far. Words simply fail to capture those feelings. The reason to recursively check your foundations if nothing else serves to recheck the systemic flow between there and the higher ordered constructs you are working with, the Voyager Spacecraft, as an example.

Instantiating The Entanglement Gradient

Arguably at this point, the cogent description of M5 instantiates the entanglement gradient end to end, both emergent and convergent vectors, inorganic to organic, and everything real in between them all Bang to Bang. Try as it might status quo thinking can’t say that nor model that reality. The more you study, the more you will come to the same conclusion. This will not ever get weaker, only stronger. The more who embrace truth as a function of the unified Universe the more powerful all this becomes.



EIM Instantiation

Elegant Reasonism Rules require investigations to employ a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) where at least one of them closes to unification. While there is no specific rule requiring usage of The Emergence Model, as it happens circa 2Q2023 it is the only one which is fully compliant with all rules herein. If other EIMs are subsequently developed then they would join the ranks of recognized models. Today there are eight recognized base line EIMs, currently enumerated M0, M1, …, M7. Under the enumeration rules no model may be ‘tweaked’ once declared. “Tweaking” (technically) requires an iteration of a given declared EIM and constitutes an iteration of a declared EIM. Such iterations would be designated by the baseline EIM followed by a period and the globally unique designator for that particular iteration. The purpose of this structure is to make specific iterations globally referencable. Anyone may employ our ISO 9001 Unification Tool, or any equivalently designed relational database system/tool for this purpose. The point here is that for any given investigation the very specific EIM iterations employed must be declared, quantified, documented, illuminated (transparently), and illustrated in compliance with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards, Six Sigma, and other quality performance metrics as appropriate for example NPEP.

What Does EIM Instantiation Mean?

Elegant Reasonism is a utility process which employs 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 EIM closing to unification: The Emergence Model. The Original Systems Review Notes were developed primarily between 2004 and 2012, and consistent with NPEP guidelines those notes are available from this system. Between 2012 and 2019 we conducted various tests, including field reviews in order to confirm or recalibrate hypothesis expectations in support of theory. Predominant geologic forces associated with metamorphic systems were realigned to our satisfaction, (as documented in our original systems review notes), to be consistent with existing traditional views and impact dynamics associated with Perimeters.

There are multiple dimensions or points of view associated with the need to instantiate various Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) by EIM well beyond academic standards, many of which are driven by global enterprise planning, practices, and engagement. Arguably there is perhaps no better example of all this than what resulted from SolREI Field Team 01’s Perimeter investigations into the Talladega National Forest (TNF). Consistent with our documented techniques (see original systems review notes) every single sample collected was consistent with energy signatures which would be expected in order to leave those Perimeters we found in their wake. Part of our equipment kit at the time was a Geiger counter and we documented radiation readings across our designated Research Area A range. Structural basins, the result of horst-and-graben faulting, are filled with Mesozoic sediments and are commonly called ‘Triassic-Jurassic basins.’ These land-derived sediments form sandstones and conglomerates, and are host to features such as dinosaur prints, rain imprints, ripple marks, and plant and freshwater fish fossils. These Mesozoic rocks are interbedded with dark lavas in many cases. A few especially hard rocks have resisted erosion and exist as monadnocks throughout the Piedmont. Stone Mountain is a 380 m (750 ft) dome of slightly metamorphosed intrusive igneous rock. The faces of Jefferson Davis, “Stonewall” Jackson, and Robert E. Lee are carved into Stone Mountain. Pine Mountain is a linear monadnock of quartzite in western Georgia, stretching nearly 100 km (60 mi) and trending northeast-southwest. Kennesaw Mountain is the site of a Civil War battle, and is set aside as Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park north of Atlanta, Georgia. Graves Mountain is a significant location for mineral collection, including lazulite, gem-quality rutile, and kyanite. Beyond kyanite, the Piedmont is also a source of granite, granite-gneiss, and marble as building materials. Historically, the region is also significant in terms of coal and gold. Richmond, Virginia was the first location of coal mining in the country from a Triassic basin. The first gold rush in the country occurred in the Dahlonega area in Georgia. A public effort of gold-panning in the mid-20th century provided enough gold to put gold leaf on the Capitol dome in Atlanta. Strategically the Piedmont province extends 1,600 km (1,000 mi) from Alabama to southern New York, and consists of highly complex metamorphic and igneous rocks that have been thoroughly weathered to produce a surface of minimum relief. The metamorphic rocks are primarily schist and gneiss, and the igneous rocks are in the granite family, commonly slightly metamorphosed. While these features and insights were consistent with our expectations, the gamma radiation measured and entered into our GIS system was not. All of our attempts to tie that radiation out to specific Perimeters failed. We did measure increasing gradient readings and all of them suggested an anthropogenic source rather than a natural source for our readings and consequently we pulled our researchers out of the field. Our experience suggests that it is vital for field personnel to be conversationally skilled in Elegant Reasonism in order to better understand what they are seeing as they look at in situation materials in the field. For example, appropriate discussion regarding our findings with non-nuclear skilled individuals would inevitably point to the area’s well known radon problem, but those folks are inappropriately thinking isotropically. Nothing about any of that geology is isotropic, if you are versed in Perimeter analysis. The problem we faced was the geology did line up with Perimeters but the radiation didn’t. The gradient associated with the radiation took us to an anthropogenic location and not a Perimeter. Those efforts resulted in The Talladega Report.

Objectifying Instantiation

In the end, we must hold reality uniquely distinct in and of itself. The unified Universe instantiates the reality in which humanity and the civilization it has created. The actual real Universe is unified whether or not your thinking about it is, and it does not care whether or not you understand that. There are enough experiments from history to know that the first three EIMs are logically correct within the contexts they render. Our original systems review strongly implied to us that M4, M5, and M6  are also logically correct, with the latter being the real reflection instantiating all the others, but humanity as of this writing has not matured enough to engage that particular EIM, if only due to issues of measurement. We are quite capable; however, of working with the other six to great effect and affect. We need only hold up the accomplishments of civilization to recognize the truth of that assertion.

Understanding what you are looking at when you see it is a very helpful skill that is significantly enhanced by what it is we did. There is enough information already online to help you gain the same precipice. Your only requirement is the willingness, perseverance, and persistence to gain that precipice. We are laying the necessary tools at your fingertips. Please engage, learn, share, and discuss with as many others as possible.

We look forward to your mode shifted insights.


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: