New Scientist 13 Most Profound Questions

Bus or the band wagon?
Bus or the band wagon?

The New Scientist article (on link below) for their 65th anniversary posed what they called 13 of the most profound questions about the cosmos and ourselves. We thought we would respond, partly because in some cases our answer was the same as theirs even though we accomplished unification. These questions are their questions not ours. We just have a slightly different take on the answers. What you are going to find here is that we are definitely not on any bandwagon. Bandwagon ticket holders please press reset. We prefer results and they might not be exactly what you were expecting. Rhetorically:

  • Do you know why, exactly, status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification?
  • Do you know not just why a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference can not be employed, but what the implications and ramifications of that failure are?
  • Can you fully couple all forces to those same objects in those same reference frames?
  • Why are the galaxies repelling one another?
  • There are whole classes of objects like BX442 that take longer to form than they have had since the Big Bang, how can that be?
  • What single cogent approach can credibly explain the unified Universe consistent across all scales and cosmology and do so Bang to Bang?


Oh, one of our early Presentations was entitled: In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions. Some of these are there, others there aren’t here. If you would like to hop on the bus then this article is for you to begin your journey to the precipice of the unified Universe.

01: Why is there something from nothing?

If we mode shifted this question it does not go away. We must understand what both of those constructs are. Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing ultimately defined space as dimensionless nothing. Rather than wonder why the Big Bang did (see Part B below), the question becomes Ok where did the MBPs come from? That’s a philosophical question and my answer is I hit a brick wall at Most Basic Particles (MBPs) because, by definition, they can not be parsed smaller than they are. Under this Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) (e.g. the cogent description of M5) they simply are given to exist and are construed as self-evident because we can continue diving particles until they can no longer be divided. Juxtaposed with MBPs is the quintessential scenario and several Thought Experiments deal with such cases. In final analysis the answer belongs to others to answer. We did our best and what we did is in our original systems review notes and on this website.

01: Part B

I asked the WMAP team before they disbanded what instigated the Big Bang and they replied “quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space”, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever to my poor brain.  Because if the Big Bang created spacetime then it, by definition, created time and if there was no time then there could not have been any fluctuations of anything real. It’s a chicken and egg problem, which I took to be a Columbus’ Egg Problem. Ultimately, because of Elegant Reasonism we were able to develop the Bang to Bang perspective enabled by The Emergence Model.

02: Why do we exist?

The original systems review ultimately exercised Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing culminating in the development of The Emergence Model under which organic molecules and the life that springs from them is enabled by the intrinsic nature of these Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs)’ core constructs. Organic molecules have a greater freedom of movement and motion than to inorganic molecules. The cogent description of M5 sets up the entanglement gradient for investigators in both the emergent and convergent vectors. The distinction is a function of specific configurations, generally construed to follow knot theory, following derivative processes: The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Those same two processes also enable evolution. Under this EIM the same processes are enabled everywhere in the unified Universe. If the conditions for life are met, then life is expected to be common in all of those places, as are the processes that govern their development.

02: Part B

If we just arbitrarily ask scientists to name a construct that is long, conductive, and deals primarily with electrons they likely would answer an antenna. Few would likely answer a neuron or axon, but some of those cells are as long as you are tall and they send electronic signals to your brain and there are sensors that can pick those signals up. How long did you think a neuron was? There is a great deal more R&D we all need to do across all domains of discourse. The work here barely smudges what needs doing.

What is the tensile length of entangled constructs? Gravitons reach beyond galactic boundaries, reverse poles if nothing else is in the immediate vicinity and then push each other away because they are all presenting like poles to one another. If you trip you fall, and perhaps learned gravity exists the hard way. We do not yet know the distances we can exploit entanglement. We are only now just sorting it all out. Biological nature has been churning entangled entities essentially on the surface of the Earth, and too beneath its waters across geologic time. Many people “feel close to nature” when they venture into the wilderness. Are they feeling that entanglement, or perhaps the result of it? I don’t know, but I can report that entanglement must be there because nature only slowly looses cohesiveness. Entanglement exists at many different scales. Do not assume that because molecular cohesion decays under Severance that at smaller scales it does not persist. Quarks remain bound within parent particles because Preon entanglement dampen those energetic constructs. So much so that quarks self-destruct if they are not entangled by Preons. Modern society interrupts many of natures original cycles from which we learned so much.

03: Why does evolution happen?

Same answer to No 2.

04: Why does time only move forward?

Time’s arrow is always positive under The Emergence Model because its core constructs are not the same as status quo thinking modeling reality. The cogent description of M5 defines time as an action displacement index. All action is positive, therefore time’s arrow is always positive. Always. Under this EIM there is no such thing as time travel. See Propositions from the original systems review.

05: Why are we both good and evil?

The short answer to this question is Neural Plasticity. Fixing evil neural pathways will require Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP).

06: Why is the universe “just right”?

See our answer to No 2.

07: Why are we conscious?

Your Central Nervous System (CNS) and Brain call on all sorts of neurons to establish memories and memory patterns. You remember your more than just your sensory inputs you remember how you feel. It is those latent memories of self that provide that construct. In short it is a feature of your biological architecture.

08: Why do we grieve?

Expanded Stages of Grief
Expanded Stages of Grief

The short answer to this question is Neural Plasticity. If the choice to exit a neural pattern loop is not made you will loop in that pattern. Some folks call that ruminating. Interestingly we see the same thing resulting in ardent defenders of status quo thinking modeling reality who are blinded by past successes of the way they’ve always done things. Transformational leadership calls that denial. Interestingly, perhaps ironically (and because we are all an intrinsic part of all that is) when we build curricula in context of Elegant Reasonism and actively seek truth as a function of the unified Universe we are in a very real sense not just the unified Universe learning about itself but what we learn reinforces what we know naturally. This recursive training is unlike any in history and is pretty cool to witness and experience. See how quickly you can leverage the process and framework to penetrate LEEs Gate.

Our experience has been that anytime foundational paradigms are threatened then we intellectually reassess the dependent paradigms above them on the stack. The more fundamental the threatened paradigm is the more likely one will have to traverse the stages of grief dealing and coping with associated paradigm shifts. We can report that ardent defenders of status quo thinking modeling reality very often get stuck in denial because they are blinded by past successes and some get so angry they act out (at us or me) for having done all this. All I can do is support the work, share it and attempt to lead transformationally. What folks do with it is up to them, not me. At the end of the day paradigm shifts are the responsibility of the learner. At the end of the proverbial day all I can suggest is that others look at what we did. We think it dovetails into unification, but see if you agree. Break it if you can. We’ve tried to do that for over a decade and only succeeded in making it more powerful than it was before we started. But you engage it. See what you think. Kill it if you can. We couldn’t. Just know that this problem is anything but new.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.


My objective has always been to improve articulation of these issues and to provide the necessary fodder so that others would not have to suffer through the same swamps, bogs, trials and tribulations I had to endure. My only wish is what you find here helps you in some way.

09: Why is Quantum Theory so strange?

The New Scientist answer to this question was: “Quantum theory is peerless at explaining reality, but assaults our intuitions of how reality should be. It seems likely the fault lies with our intuitions.” We would not say that, if only because nothing in status quo thinking modeling reality will ever close to unification and it will not because it is philosophically precluded from doing so. Unification was not the problem being solved by Relativity. Perhaps stating what we did will help. To that end: Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science (not after you get there because by then you’ve missed the proverbial forest and are looking at tree bark) and which produced the first fully compliant, standards based, Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) that closed to unification: The Emergence Model holistically represented by a logical view (e.g. EIM M5) and a real view (e.g. EIM M6). Learning to conversationally navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) is perhaps challenge for many, if not most, but here again understanding Neural Plasticity helps a great deal. The single greatest learning point a newbie can invest is understanding the implications and ramifications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in order that they do not fall prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Having said all that, there are many aspects of quantum theory that are logic artifacts associated with the EIM manifesting that fundamental context, and which completely vanish under The Emergence Model. We won’t go so far as to say it’s easy to do that but many issues are rendered more elegantly, but that’s our opinion. We’ll leave it to you to decide and report.

10: Why is there a cosmic speed limit?

Einstein - Hubble meeting
Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument

The New Scientist answer to this question was: “Nothing in the cosmos can travel faster than light speed. By distinguishing cause and effect and stopping everything happening in a jumbled mess, our existence depends on it.” Here again we have a different answer. Deep breath, here goes. There is no “speed limit”, but before all the physicists yell heresy please bear with us. There is a device and a plethora of experiments (e.g. interferometer experiments) which “prove” (e.g. they all reported the same number for independent verification as per Empiricism rules) that the speed of light never changes. Well guess what. Every single one of those instruments employs the same Photon-Electron system producing that velocity. The velocity is a product of the system producing it not some external declaration or law. Under The Emergence Model that same system is subject to the same intrinsic processes as everything else in the unified Universe. Notably here we are interested in The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance and will actually report the same velocity value but why it is true is different and that’s very profound beyond measure. It is as profound as it is exactly because it segregates Local Frames from Cosmological Event Frames. In the local frame of the interferometer photon entanglement within the EFPS1 system cascading toward Severance exerts centripetal force on the photon (consistent with synchrotron radiation) and ultimately Severance is achieved and the photon is emitted. Most of Relativity remains essentially intact except the limit for the velocity of light is mode shifted such that cosmological velocities are governed by Rapidity which now properly is defined as velocity over Severance, and is infinite. This same set of circumstances shifts our focus away from the medium of space consistent with Proposition 0025: Our focus must shift away from the medium and onto what is in it because we also are able to eliminate the Inflationary Theory. Ultimately Edwin P Hubble and his body of work are vindicated. Bell Inequality Experiments testing spooky action at a distance, previously dismissed are also vindicated and those experiments report the speed of entanglement may well exceed 54 times the speed of light. The point being that it is the speed of entanglement providing all the needed energy of emission, but for many of the mysterious aspects of quantum mechanics.


Einstein on Problems & Thinking
Albert Einstein on problem solving

The second part of this is understanding that status quo thinking modeling reality employs core constructs manifesting the spacetime-mass interface across which nothing real can transit without first conversion to energy, and that is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. The science of geometry requires all real geometric objects to employ a real geometric basis point. That’s something tradition can not do. Not now, not ever, and exactly because of that interface. It is a philosophical issue, not a science issue.

Again, photons have the velocity they do because of the system emitting them and here that is true both locally and cosmologically. The cogent description of M5 provides a characterization of all forces (e.g. the basis of the unified Universe) enabling all reference frames to both employ a common real geometric basis point (in the form of an MBP or any set of them) and to fully couple those same real objects in all reference frames. Credible skeptical review will conclude the same.

Gravity under status quo thinking modeling reality is a phenomena, not a property, resulting from mass warping spacetime. Under The Emergence Model gravity is a function of the work performed by the action of dynamic architectural mass in the form of Gravitons. The results across the various EIMs are all simultaneously logically correct in terms of gravitational lensing etc. Consequently that phenomena is not necessarily proof M1 or M2 is correct as much as it is proof they are logically correct, but then so is M5 and only the latter closes to unification. Science gets bogged down under issues of simultaneous truths, and it is one area where Elegant Reasonism brings power to bear on the problem. Here Richard P Feynman discusses the limits of science and intricacies of knowing vs understanding:


From our point of view had Feynman been aware of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), and perhaps systems engineering (which was not officially represented until 1990) we suspect he would have come up with what we did a very long time ago. Which is one reason we strongly encourage everyone to study not just what such an mistake they are but the systemic implications and ramifications of committing them.

10: Part B

The whole discussion about causality is predicated on the time continuum existing in reality. Making that assumption is commission of a Langer Epistemology Error (LEE). When we mode shift time between say M1 and M5, that continuum ceases to exist. Consequently so does the aforementioned discussion. Causality discussions are essentially logical in nature and are a product of the context made manifest by EIM producing them. Consequently causality can be said to be a logic artifact of EIMs whose constructs manifest that context. EIMs which do not manifest that same context do not employ those constructs. It is simple as that.

11: Why are we irrational?

Human beings are emotional beings. We have an Emotional Quotient (EQ) every bit as much as we have an Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Our Central Nervous System (CNS) and Brains instantly furnish us with abstractions in order for us to cope with our environment. In a sense we are hard wired to commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) through no fault of our own. That is something evolution did to us out of happenstance. Those abstractions form what we call Paradigm Stacks, which are collections of related patterns in order of dependency. Patterns at fundamental emotional levels are exceedingly difficult to change. Perhaps they will not in some cases change no matter what you do. Many, if not most, though can be changed through Neural Plasticity and if addressed intentionally through NNRP. A key awareness point is that neurons that fire together, wire together. The challenge then is to chose the right patterns to fire together. My favorite bumper sticker: “Education, because ignorance votes”, and do not make the mistake of confusing education with schooling.


11: Part B

We might call this answer part LEEs Empiricism Trap.

12: Why haven’t we heard from aliens?

Unfortunately The Emergence Model reconciles the Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox. Part of the reconciliation arises directly due to the cogent description of M5 and the manner in which space is there defined. That definition immediately eliminate populist plot devices such as warp drive, Alcubierre drives, and hyperspace; replacing them with something we call managed Severance field drives. Managed Severance Field Drives are what we have suggested to the Department of Energy are powering those pesky little vehicles the US Navy chases. Interesting as that may be they do not give such craft purchase in the interstellar medium. They only work inside the confines of a solar system like Sol‘s heliosheath. Calculating a navigational course between star systems, both of which are in constant motion and individually subject to complex celestial mechanics becomes very problematic if in the middle of a trip and you find you need to change course and there is nothing to grab hold of to provide traction. See SciFi In Unification’s Wake. Another aspect of all this that makes traditional plot devices problematic is that the objects between the stars are a great deal larger than we previously believed and there are more of them. Together these issues holistically here conspire to reconcile the above equations. Now, having said that, there is a saving grace and strategy. Perhaps it is a game with which you are already familiar called Leap Frog. Recognizing that our planet is essentially a starship and we are already moving and a pretty healthy clip, all we need do is wait to pass close to another star and then send over an investigation/colonization team. Sound implausible? I give you Scholz’s Star which passed by Sol quite some time ago. Did another civilization leap to us? I dunno, but if they did it means we have the necessary clues to find them. It is possible that we have heard from aliens, but only in as much to get us to think about the larger tapestry. If another civilization is capable of such a feat they could not care less about anything Earth possesses they don’t already have in abundance. Their only interest would be to make sure we don’t kill ourselves, but if we are hell bent to do that then they may just let us and stand clear while we do it. That makes it easier for them anyway.

13: Why is the universe intelligible?

The New Scientist’s answer to this question was: “We have made huge progress in understanding some bits of the cosmos, but we’ve hit a brick wall with things like quantum theory and our own minds. Is there a way round?”

Our answer to that question is: Perhaps stating what we did will help. To that end: Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science (not after you get there because by then you’ve missed the proverbial forest and are looking at tree bark) and which produced the first fully compliant, standards based, Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) that closed to unification: The Emergence Model holistically represented by a logical view (e.g. EIM M5) and a real view (e.g. EIM M6).

13: Part B

My original systems review notes are online and the effort spanned from 2004 and essentially continues to this day. I have been blessed to know or have met some very notable people of our age because of where I worked and my assignments. Many assignments were business process reengineering efforts. Others put me in education roles with PhDs from many noted schools and disciplines. I am grateful for those all of those people and the opportunities presented me. One notable memorial is Benoit Mandelbrot mentioned on page 7 of the original systems review notes. Acknowledgements all around and especially to Albert Einstein, Susanne K Langer, and Lev B Okun. I am especially proud and honored to have been part of the OS/2 Warp Team, what we did in 100 days, 80+ countries, 20+ languages, they had said before we began that what was being asked was impossible, but we did it anyway. None of this would be here absent the broad support from IBMers worldwide, and you know who you are.



13: Part C

The unified Universe is a marvelous precipice on which to stand and one well worth your effort to gain. Sic’em. We look forward to your mode shifted insights soon! My only caution is not to present insights absent the process used to develop them, lest they be taken out of context. Context is paramount in this particular matter (no pun intended).

Summary Closing

Alas all this is just hypothetical musings of an autodidact so it doesn’t matter much to anyone, right? 😉 Other autodidacts in history were Oliver Heaviside, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs among many others.  McGowen studied aerospace engineering at Auburn but IBM hired him as a sophomore. Assignments spanned general systems, entry systems, sales, education, marketing, and brand management. He was part of the worldwide OS/2 brand management team and marketing lead on OS/2 Warp v3. His tenure (1979-2003) at the company spanned the organization ultimately found him in Armonk (CHQ) where he was responsible/accountable for deployment of the market/business planning process worldwide. He had to leave that realm to care for family. He has two children. He has also been an open water scuba instructor, educator, pilot, mechanic, Realtor, mortgage broker, photographer, adventurer and he has been acknowledged by the USPTO as the inventor of Elegant Reasonism. He finds it quite ironic that Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-American Austrian School economist, historian, logician, and sociologist, body of work would restfully link economics through Human Action with the unified Universe via EMCS01 Action Principles and that the Mises Institute on Economics would be found on the beautiful plains of Auburn where everything comes full circle. Hows that for serendipity.


  • Status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification exactly because those core constructs philosophically do not close to unification (nor will they ever). Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and it is for that reason that thinking can not employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in the same reference frame.
  • LEEs Empiricism Trap is insidious and has obfuscated the path to unification for who knows how long.
  • The unified Universe is self evident, real, and you are inextricably part of all that is. Unification demands and requires credible integration of everything real. You be the judge if we accomplished that.
  • Never, ever, present insights absent cognition of the process and framework used to epistemologically develop them (e.g. Elegant Reasonism). Remember Plato’s allegory of The Cave.

I find myself in agreement with Robert Kennedy who said: “Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not.” Asked why I did all this my answer was, because no one else wanted to pick up that torch and run with it, and we asked, more often than not, in vain for help constantly. In the end, I took that journey alone, but make no mistake, what I was able to do was only accomplished because I was able to stand on the shoulders of giants that came before me. All those acknowledged and more were significantly a part of this journey. We as a civilization did this. You tell me if it was worth my meager time to have done all this work.


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #unifiedUniverse


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: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707