Winston Churchill on TruthWinston Churchill on Truth


Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

It has been said; that there is no such thing as cold, only the absence of heat. The same has been said of darkness, that there is only the absence of light. Consequently there is only truth and our only opportunity is to illuminate it. What there are a multitude of; however, are interpretations of exactly how to go about accomplishing that task. What has received little attention is that human physiological sensors send signals to our brains across our Central Nervous Systems (CNS) where they manifest abstractions intrinsically in order for humans to relate to the realm in which we exist. It was this domain of discourse that interested Susanne K Langer‘s philosophical pursuits in the body of her work. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Taking for a moment Niels Bohr is correct in as much as material particles are in fact abstractions of ideas which collectively we assign to refer to how reality instantiates phenomena and behavior then we must ultimately conclude that what reality is in fact instantiating are our ideas of it and not the underpinning actual reality itself. It is for this reason that multiple theories for the same physics can even exist. Otherwise there would be only single possible outcomes for any given set of physics. The strategic truth emerging from this insight re-positions how we think about Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) and the processes that employ them. To believe that the abstractions we employ ‘are’ actual reality is to commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and we must avoid such commission at all costs lest we embrace the slippery slope leading directly into LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Modern information sciences demonstrate that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different in reality. What Albert Einstein began creating in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, but therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice capable of both perceiving and engaging the unified Universe. The design point of the utility process employing its technological framework supporting the epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe which holistically is Elegant Reasonism takes a plurality of EIMs and juxtaposes them relative to and respective of instantiation by the unified Universe in order to ferret out and otherwise discern the logical from the real. To do that we must first comprehend implications and ramifications associated with commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Such associations are quite profound and relevant not to be ignored. To bring the various ideas, concepts, constructs, past original works, and modern interpretation of those past works, to bear on the various discussions our User Library literally had to span science, history, and integrate net new science as litmus to principled litmus to the premise being asserted here.


In order for any geometry to be valid it must have an arbitrary point of origin, or the geometry is logical in nature and not real. Try engaging a writing surface to draw a picture of any object but never touch your writing instrument to that surface. It is sort of hard to represent the object, unless you are allowed to do that, right? It is for this reason you will often find here us illuminating insights relative to and respective of the ability to employ a real common geometric basis point. Not a logically correct geometric basis point, but one in actual real reality and once it has been identified you must be able to associate all real objects in every frame of reference to it. Strategically at issue here is that within the EIM first posited by Albert Einstein, the core constructs of his EIM manifest relationships such that a spacetime-mass interface results, and across which nothing real can transition without conversion to energy precluding any possibility of employing such a real, common, geometric basis point. We must therefore relegate all EIMs employing such constructs into the realm of the logical, not the realm of the real. Much of the advanced technology, machines, instrumentality, experiments, etc have been created through our logically correct understanding of how reality works. Salient is whether or not such dissertations close to unification, or are they only logically correct based on EIMs that do not meet such metrics? While they may have very high integrity metrics as measured by the contextual context established by the baseline EIM we must then ask if that EIM itself does or does not close to unification. To that end we have a group of criteria herein we refer to as the realm of c’s because the words characterizing the different factors mostly begin with the letter ‘c’. One of those words is the term ‘close’, meaning close to unification.

Situation Analysis

The situation we find ourselves in, is that we (humans) are inside any given EIM accomplishing unification. Unification, by definition, is the credible manifestation of everything real. That is to say we must be able to reverse engineer how we arrived where we are in what we experience and we must be able to run the proverbial clock in both directions. Along what we refer to as the Entanglement Gradient that would be in both the emergent and convergent vectors. All of that means there must be simultaneous paths to manifest everything real, including us. Often it is helpful to write complex situations into a single sentence in order that the factors may be distinguished from one another. Relationships are then set up for proper discussion and exploration. From that point of view then we have a characterization of the process and its result: 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) closing to unification: The Emergence Model.

Contextual Anchorages

Reflecting reality as we do through the context made manifest by any given EIM we must respect the fine line between that logical correctness and the reality instantiating it. Lack of such respect very likely is accompanied by contemporaneous commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). To believe that a given EIM ‘is’ reality also constitutes such commission. The only requirement under the rules is a plurality of EIMs must be employed and at least one must close to unification for any given investigation.

So What?!?

Proper path discernment is the treasure at risk by improper alignment of truth. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and each distinct recognized epistemology sources truth differently. Those fundamental distinctions are what distinguish one epistemology from another. Science has historically employed Empiricism epistemologically valuing the ability duplicate and repeat experiments in order to properly interpret results. There is however an essential flaw in its premise. That flaw is illuminated by modern information sciences where it is recognized that a given set of real objects may be represented by multiple simultaneous logically correct truths. The video below Richard Feynman discusses distinctions between knowing and understanding. As a part of that 1950s discussion he makes the point that multiple theories may have all consequences that are the same and that they too agree with experiment. This is what we mean by simultaneous truths. He goes on to point out that no where in science is that discipline able to discern which theory is ‘right’ (e.g. correct) at that level exactly because they all agree with experiment.


It is in recognition of these various issues and factors that we are reminded of what science is and where it came from, as well as why we hold it as we do today. Essentially science is the philosophical study of nature that employs specialized tools and methods. The advent of the laboratory honed those principles and processes over the last several hundred years. In doing so scientists found themselves departing from their philosophical roots held by tradition. At issue in such contemplation is for the ability to see align with the unified Universe as we look. The flip side of that same coin is that not recognizing such requirements finds investigators see alignment to the EIM manifesting interpretative context as they look rather than the reality they truly seek. Their vision has been obfuscated by commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Eye exam machine
Eye exam machine

What happens in the presence of ardent commission of LEEs? Logically correct constructs are construed as real objects. What ought to be regarded as logic artifacts are either wholly missed or ignored. Incongruity is rationalized away as irrelevant. Investigators who pursue such incongruous elements are held in disdain by status quo thinkers modeling reality.  Want an example? Ask a physicist to demonstrate the geometric basis point of spacetime and then sit back why they explain why you don’t need such a construct. They will likely lead you down a primrose path leading directly into the multiverse. All of which they will still have failed to answer your original question. It is all simply elaborate obfuscation hiding the simple fact that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without conversion to energy thus precluding the ability to employ a real common geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference. At the moment there are eight recognized Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) enumerated M0, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and M7. Out of those eight only The Emergence Model closes to unification in a fully compliant manner.

Status quo thinking worldwide is entrenched and otherwise mired within the EIM M1. Thanks to the work done by Dr. Lev B Okun we were able to distinguish M1 from M2 to understand the implications and ramifications of Albert Einstein‘s original thinking and beliefs. Rhetorically we ask whether you believe mass is variant or invariant and then whether or not Einstein believed what you just answered, many report that they believe mass to be variant and yes that’s what Einstein‘ believed. Status quo thinkers usually report mass as variant, but that is not what Einstein believed. Einstein believed mass was invariant and it was better to express inertia and momentum as separate factors. Those various issues are essentially what distinguishes those two EIMs (e.g. M1 and M2). Part of the point being made is that sorting all this out was complex and took a great deal of time and effort. Be that as it may all of that evidence is here on this website. Original source materials we have attempted to place in our User Library for your reference and review. We invite your critical review and we are confident that if you approach the whole investigation with honest scientific scrutiny and philosophical skepticism that you will ultimately come to the same conclusions we did and we offer all of this material to aid you in that quest.


Every path has consequences. Those who defend existing status quo interpretations modeling reality will increasingly find themselves left behind, ultimately relegated to history’s dust heap. Those who openly embrace science, even when new precepts are a bitter pill to swallow, will find their new capabilities out strip the bitterness it took to gain the precipice of unification.

Necessary But Insufficient

Empiricism is necessary but insufficient exactly because it is essentially a product of human physiology. If empiricism were enough it would have caught this situation decades ago. The fact is that LEEs Empiricism Trap has mired civilization for more than a century and our arrogance has blinded us to the needed awareness to escape the trap until now. Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism is tied to, seeks truth from, the unified Universe. The first diamond decision block below center left labeled “Langer Epistemology Errors?” is broadly herein referred to as LEEs Gate, because if you never realize LEEs you will loop to the left of that block for eternity. No progress will transpire until the implications and ramifications of LEE commission are recognized. The more critically stituationally aware your thinking is along these lines the more effective you will be at navigating this chart. Also be aware of the recursive nature of this process flow. Our experience is that insights are made manifest through iterative recursive review of material. Here material can be historical in nature or modern contemporaneous net new science. Also be aware of the highly systemic nature of EIM core constructs. The terms space, energy, and mass have definitions that mode shift EIM to EIM and the patterns and relationships which result relative to and respective of individual EIMs is quite illuminating. Another word might be profound. Our original systems review covers over 400 equations from history. Their constituents represent vital concepts and how mode shifting them EIM to EIM inevitably lead to The Emergence Model.

Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart

Immediate Implications

Many of the immediate implications In Unification’s Wake are presented in part 1 of that presentation series and is entitled Typical Questions. We have only begun to mode shift vital concepts. There is more work yet to do than we can possibly get to. The more people who understand this the faster civilization will get through this nascent period. Everything about this website is referenceable out across the network primarily to help us all help each other to learn. The entire User Library may be referenced in this manner. Our acknowledgements page lists those people whose material provided key insights during our original systems review.  This was most especially true of Albert Einstein, Susanne K Langer, and Lev B Okun, each of whom have a dedicated page and without whom none of this would have been possible.


The knee-jerk reaction represents a desire to simply articulate resulting insights; however, that is a presumptuous approach. The presumption requires a common foundation for communications that spans participating entities and that situation is patently false.

Insights Must Be Accompanied By The Process Making Them Manifest

EIMs manifest fundamental interpretative context. If the EIM changes, then so does that context. Insights developed external to an established context have no traction for communications. Only when all parties are fully cognizant of the process and set of EIMs employed for a given investigation can effective communications transpire. This has been a major challenge since our original systems review began in 2004. Everyone expects the context to remain the same and it does not. Insights delivered in isolation (e.g. separate and apart from process understanding) will fall on deaf minds exactly because in that situation they are delivered ‘out of context’. Investigative teams must take great care to assure sponsors and stakeholders are kept in the loop on process issues affecting contextual communications.

Tweeking vs Mode Shifting

If you go back and watch Richard Feynman‘s video above, again, you will notice he discusses ‘changing an element in a given theory’. Most folks refer to this as ‘tweaking’ an idea. Elegant Reasonism Rules do not generally allow ‘tweaking’. Instead, the preferred method enumerates and iterates quantifies and codifies Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). The reason for this is perhaps more subtle than one might otherwise suspect. When investigators first begin working to understand the utility process and its technological framework an early work effort is enabling the 2D Articulation Frame. This is where the initial elements required for mode shifting are made manifest. Investigators will find it invaluable to employ either our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or an equivalent relational database tool of their own creation. Flat files or spreadsheets are not adequate for enforcing the necessary rules and potentially will obfuscate vital insights if not used properly. We can only caution that these are tenuous relationships which are highly systemic and we urge everyone to respect the difficulties which relational systems reconcile.

Intrinsic value is mode shifted and elevated through the above processes such that vital insights are illuminated which heretofore were never fathomed much less recognized. Once you begin to understand the mechanics of mode shifting investigators are very likely to almost immediately begin discerning the plethora of clues that litter the landscape of science but which were previously well obfuscated by the blinders of traditional approaches. Ardent defenders of status quo science modeling reality are sternly cautioned not to be blinded by past successes.

Once investigators begin to see those clues everywhere, it then becomes apparent how past blinders precluded recognition of those clues. Once you understand that it is possible to objectify the landscape of your particular investigation. You will be able to plot and chart out how highly systemic relationships and patterns change as a function of the EIMs making manifest each unique, distinct, realm of context. Once you realize that reality is instantiating simultaneous truths we all might then exploit this across the technological framework in order to ferret out nuances in reality available in no other manner. To say that this process is powerful is the understatement of the millennia.

Shop Now


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #EIM #Philosophy #Axiology #Epistemology #Ontology #Science #Supervenience #Value #GlobalEconomy #Global2000 #SixSigma #Quality #NPEP


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: