Critical_Thinking_02.jpgCritical Thinkers Are...

Science In Isolation

Did you know science has limits? Many if not most today erroneously believe science is working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it, which is why they are erroneous beliefs. The question is what to do about that. Some of the most noted scientists in history have integrated these issues into their presentations and lectures for many decades. One from the 1950s is presented below, just to make the point that these ideas are not new. Elegant Reasonism had as one of its design points dealing with exactly these issues. What we do here is nothing short of Epic.

The unified Universe

Humbly I literally lay here before you the keys to the kingdom of the unified Universe, and grand as that vista may be the real question is what will you do because you now see as you look.

Unification demands and requires the integration of everything real.

No domain is an island unto itself, not even it seems is our particle horizon. We must shed this self-important arrogance and conceit, if only because we are an intrinsic part of all that is and that will never change. It has been said there is no law against choosing to be stupid. Certainly in the modern age for everyone with network access the degree to which you understand and engage reality is a deliberate choice. I would argue there is such a law if only because ignorance of the law is no defense nor excuse, and if you don’t believe that go ask an attorney or a Judge. Some of the most famous people in history are autodidacts. A favorite bumper sticker perhaps should read “Education: Because Ignorance Votes”, but that is from another’s point of view and not the individual citizen making the choice. There is embedded in that choice an ancient primal conceit of self. Consider for a moment those embracing human-technology interfaces linking back to the network. Would technology even allow such a choice to be made? Why would free will chose ignorance? Partly because it is overwhelmed, perhaps. Partly because the worldview inculcated within it is proving false and those know no where else to turn. Early preparation, it seems is important. It is much easier to deflect an inbound asteroid if done early and impossible at the last moment. The same argument could be made in a broader sense.

Bastions of institutionalized thinking modeling reality have promulgated the idea that science in isolation is the answer and if there is any lesson the precipice of the unified Universe, especially in hindsight, is that premise is anything but true. True if only because unification demands and requires everything real to be integrated, not segregated. Another facet of that same requirement is the inter-relatedness of every domain of discourse. It means minimally recognition of discernment between logically correct constructs and those representing actual reality. Saying something is a “law” might be necessary but it is insufficient to satisfy the point being made. For example, take Newton’s Laws. We know what they are, and have taught them in science classes for centuries. Anyone dropping a ball can witness the affect of their effect. Drop an iron ball on your toe and you will have new found respect for those laws. There is a famous Galilean experiment that was actually replicated by Apollo Astronauts on the lunar surface. Galileo experimentally proved with different sized cannon balls that all objects in a gravity field fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. Astronauts on the surface of the Moon, where there was no air to influence the experiment, simultaneously dropped a hammer and a falcon’s feather and both fell at the same rate and hit the ground (the Moon) at the same time. What they did not tell you is that that rate is different for the Earth than it is on the Moon (or anywhere else in the Sol System).


Philosophically the epistemological basis of science is Empiricism, which:

  • Deals with observable, measurable, and repeatable phenomena.
  • Can offer explanations but such must be recursively tested, validated, and verified by others.
  • Acknowledges human foibles.

The common thread of assumption in these criteria and factors is human physiology. Within the animal kingdom those ‘foibles’ manifest themselves in more than psychological or behavior aspects. The Central Nervous System (CNS) connects physiological sensors to the Brain which holistically then manifests abstractions in order to cope and deal with environment as a matter of intrinsic nature. Given that we humans are a part of that kingdom, it equally applies to all humans. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details. The further removed a given abstraction is from its foundational abstractions the more true that insight is. The very direct implications here are:

It is for these reasons and more that unification within Elegant Reasonism must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering any constituent constituent area of philosophy most especially: axiology, epistemology, logic, ontology, science, and supervenience. It is for these reasons that the utility process employs a framework whose analytical layers specifically address those areas in a standards based manner consistent with Baldrige and NPEP requirements.

Compelling Confidence

The short answer is what is here can reflect the unified Universe and status quo thinking modeling reality can not do that. This also answers why this point of view supersedes all others. It is not a declaratory statement, rather it is an observation based on our original systems review, evidence, and data. Elegant Reasonism can:

  • Employ a common real geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference, and
  • Fully couple all real objects in those same reference frames relative to and respective of all forces influencing those objects.

If one simply utters that unification has been accomplished the instant knee-jerk reaction is for a simplistic explanation in context of what the recipient of this news already knows. Few comprehend the magnitude, nor systemic implications of exactly what this means. Certainly the very last thing anyone expected was that fundamental context would change, requiring enhanced ability to communicate.

Mode Shifting Communications 

Reality Is Unified, Is Your View Of It?

If spacetime is real then so too is the spacetime-mass interface. If it is not real then what is? Here is the strategic point however. The spacetime-mass interface does exist, the only question is whether its nature is exclusively logical or real. Given the failures of quantum computing and quantum gravity, we argue here that spacetime is exclusively logical in nature (e.g. it is not real). The implication is that the model created by Albert Einstein beginning in 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice where we may both perceive and engage the unified Universe. While Susanne K Langer’s insights were released in 1948 they targeted art appreciation markets rather than the sciences. Consequently it went essentially unnoticed in science domains for all but a handful, but even they were beat down by throngs of institutionalized zombies. Commensurate with these lines of view maturing the information sciences suffered their formative years. Not until 1990 was the profession of Systems Engineering organizationally and officially represented when the International Council On Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was formed.

When we come to understand the domain of discourse that is the unified Universe, we also recognize that there must be a single common thread connecting everything real. The Emergence Model holds that common thread as the intrinsic nature of its most fundamental construct: The Most Basic Particle (MBP). From the cogent description of M5 that intrinsic nature lays the foundation to derive everything real. Perhaps even more inspiring is that foundation is the genesis of organic matter and its subsequent biology. We hold it self-evident that the unified Universe can spawn such if only because you are there reading this.

An Essay On Man – Epistle I, by Alexander Pope

Published between 1732 and 1734, of which we find this passage particularly insightful, given when it was released.

He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
See worlds on worlds compose one universe,
Observe how system into system runs,
What other planets circle other suns,
What varied being peoples ev’ry star,
May tell why Heav’n has made us as we are.
But of this frame the bearings, and the ties,
The strong connections, nice dependencies,
Gradations just, has thy pervading soul
Look’d through? or can a part contain the whole?

The full implications of the unified Universe inspired the poem: The Grandeur of God, on page 783 of the original systems review notes.

Another list of topics reconciled by Elegant Reasonism:

  • Spacetime is a logical construct made manifest by logically correct Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) which do not close to unification and therefore do not comply with the realm of c’s. There is no ‘fate’ as the construct is exclusively logical in its nature.
  • Duality and Quantum Mechanics are largely a function of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Wave-Particle duality is reconciled/eliminated in this manner.
  • Magic, Mystery, and Matrix topics are fantasy topics promulgated by elaborate BS which has no basis in reality; certainly no reality that philosophically closes to unification as a predicate priority entering science.
  • Saying that the holes are defined by the string implies a container that does not exist. Strategic here is recognition of the spacetime-mass interface and that nothing real can transition that interface without first conversion to energy. It is for that reason that a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference can not be employed by status quo thinking modeling reality. When we juxtapose M1, M2, and M5 (and employing M4 as a go between) for effective fully compliant mode shifting (e.g. fully compliant standards based navigation of the PDCF) then we recognize the logical nature of many, if not most or all, of the colloquial debate points.
  • Mass Questions are a function of the EIM manifesting context and the ability to measure it in the first place. Here everything real has mass and your ability to measure that metric is a function of the relevant and respective configurations of MBPs (e.g. real objects) made manifest by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance.
  • The Higgs Boson and Higgs Mechanism are essentially phonons within entangled systems. What exacerbates these various relationships has been empirical observation of interferometer experiments which experimentally reported local frame velocities for the speed of light consistently, and constantly. It was this problem that Einstein was addressing when he created Relativity. Under The Emergence Model, the term ‘c’ mode shifts and is consequently redefined as Severance, where its constituency within equations makes a great deal more sense. The velocity stays the same but why it is true changes. We then realize that what Einstein created beginning in 1905 (e.g. Relativity) is absolutely 100% logically correct, we are instantly liberated to recognize the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of the unified Universe and the proverbial Keys To The Kingdom. This recognition then vindicates several major bodies of work: Edwin P Hubble and Bell Inequality Experiments testing entanglement reporting superluminal results.
  • Traditional string theory is a logic artifact argument trying to fight its way out of a wet paper bag and under M1 it will never succeed exactly because the EIM manifesting context is intrinsically logical in its nature (e.g. it is not directly connected to reality) (e.g.g. it has committed Langer Epistemology Errors).
  • Black Holes and Quark Confinement are issues completely reconciled by the cogent description of M5. Black holes are essentially Graviton stars whose event horizons maximize action per unit area exceeding Severance. Because they are Graviton constructs they pull everything below that event horizon. Quark confinement is a function of Preons damping otherwise destructive phase resonance in those particular configurations (e.g. architectural mass).
  • Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes is reconciled due to two major factors: the cogent description of M5, and Bell Inequality Experiments testing entanglement reporting superluminal results. These factors conspire to eliminate traditional limits on cosmological speed of light, which then becomes governed by Rapidity (properly read then as velocity over Severance).
  • Symmetry doesn’t really breaks down; however, knots don’t cross in the same manner when viewed 180 degrees (e.g. opposite vectors). Another factor here is the fundamental EIM manifesting context for any discussion of symmetry. Any discussion of an EIM which does not close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority entering science must be prepared to engage everything they consider real in every aspect of their discussion and they must be prepared to do two things: employ a common real geometric basis point and fully couple every reference frame in their examples. And candidly we already know they can’t do that.
  • Traditional String Theory unravels due to the same discussions involving symmetry. Any discussion of an EIM which does not close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority entering science must be prepared to engage everything they consider real in every aspect of their discussion and they must be prepared to do two things: employ a common real geometric basis point and fully couple every reference frame in their examples. And candidly we already know they can’t do that.
  • Knots and Quantum Theory must be mode shifted in order to manifest the proper context of implementation, but Knot Theory holds the rich permutations necessary and once quantum theory is understood in context of The Emergence Model it too holds great promise, especially with Preons.
  • Every physicist should understand how logically correct EIMs that do not close to unification also produce logic artifacts that are essentially irreconcilable exactly because they will never close to unification. Those logic artifact produce all sorts of elaborate ruses and red herrings that obfuscate the path enabling attainment of the unified Universe.

Unification: Philosophical Predicate Priority

I have posted this video ad nauseam partly due to the levels of denial we experience and partly because something so simple seems so difficult for folks to accept. I post it also partly because people don’t want to hear the message from me and hopefully they will listen to Richard P Feynman making exactly the same case, and doing so in a 1950’s lecture no less. So it isn’t like any of this is new.


The reason for constantly posting this video is to pound home the point that science has its limits, and when those limits are reached there needs to be a codified manner to proceed. I argue that manner is: Elegant Reasonism for all the holistic reasons cited across this website. When we use phrases such as “looks more” we are injecting subjectivity into an otherwise objective quest. The problem, challenges, alternatives, choices, rationale, and next steps are all relevant when we are attempting to discern logical and real realms from one another. Exactly because there are no circumstances where we humans are not employing abstractions investigating reality we are forced to recognize those abstractions for what they are, lest we become obtuse in our commission of Langer Epistemology Errors rather than innocent. Either way we are stuck to the left of LEEs Gate as we work toward developing any Treatise capable of representing the unified Universe in any way.

Normal Revolutionary Ideas

There is in history a common theme of searching for “our place in the universe”, assumption being that the universe cares. Part of that premise seeks order from chaos. I can only wish what has been found so far would lend credence to any of that. If it does, I don’t see it. Those that assert they do, usually don’t understand what it is we did here. Modern information theory illuminates the situation that multiple logically correct ‘views’ of the same real system is something of a norm, most especially within the software development community. In my professional tenure I’ve lost count of situations where I had to mediate debates between hardware and software teams on problem analysis. In the end the customer didn’t care, they just wanted the problem to go away, and both teams had to come together to reconcile the issue. Something can be logically correct yet remain different in reality. Conversely there is almost always more than one physical way to accomplish the same logical outcome. Paradoxical as these situations may seem all are true.

What Elegant Reasonism brought to the proverbial party is the realization of these factors and an objectivity to reality never realized prior to its introduction. We don’t declare what reality is or is not at all. What we declare is: “hmmm, reality instantiates this Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) that way, and this other EIM that other way, how does it do both simultaneously?” The point I am attempting to illustrate is a whole realm of questions (not just these simplistic examples) that civilization has never fathomed. Another aspect is the depth to which we must go to find answers. My experience is that, every single time, a review of the core, foundational, constructs (e.g. abstractions) is required in order to verify and validate they are applicable to your particular investigation and context. And if you can not perceive those anchor points and relationships then homework is needed.

Having made these points then the following two historical texts were written ignorant of those insights. They have no awareness of the implications or ramification of Langer Epistemology Errors. These texts must be mode shifted, but knowing that they harbor that need is useful when you read them. If your critical situational awareness thinking as you encounter these materials is such that you can recognize the source of truth being reflected is or is not from the unified Universe will help you translate understanding from that precipice.

The Great Chain of Being: History of the Idea



The Structure of Scientific Revolutions



The Actual Road To Reality Demands Plurality

Abstractions, as a construct, are particularly defined as a function of the Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) in which they inhabit. They are not universal, and I mean universal in the strictest sense of the unified Universe, not the colloquial shortsightedness of what we can see with the naked eye in the night sky (grand as that may be). I mean all of everything real. To many that might sound reasonable in a scientific sense, but it is more of a challenge than first appears, exactly because we can not directly perceive everything real and what we do perceive must take into account the very abstraction lenses we employ to accomplish perception in the first place. Rhetorical question:

  • Does your abstraction set close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering the domain of discourse that is science?
  • What are the implications and ramification of whether or not your particular EIM closing or not closing to unification? How does that impact your view of philosophy or science as a domain of discourse? The answer “I don’t know”, is a good first humble step to learn whether or not your expectations need to be reset.

The pool of status quo thinking modeling reality which stands on a pedestal and stage claiming the path to reality is a singular set of precepts is fooling more than you, but themselves as well. Any critical review of this situation must begin with a comprehensive understanding of Langer Epistemology Errors and not just what they are and how they are made, but the implications and ramifications of making them. Standing here in hindsight it is easy to see. Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) established foundational context. When the EIM changes so too do the various relationships and patterns, especially systemic relationships.

Even our physical makeup, or physiology, instantly furnishes us with abstractions in order that we might deal and cope with the circumstances of our environment. There are zero cases or scenarios where we are not working through abstractions investigating anything to do with reality, including physics. The manner in which we describe laws, employs abstractions. Investigators get down to a certain level working toward reality where great care must be taken in interpretation to make sure all the “c” criteria (and even that’s a c word) are met. Most often the majority of those words representing criteria and metrics for various peer reviewed papers are all met. All met except one: closure. Zero peer reviewed papers have ever closed to unification, until I published and filed my papers beginning in 2012 and again in 2019. That point has less to do with me than it does the status quo with whom I tried to work. That effort was in vain and fell on deaf minds. Consequently we are where were are and this website stands testament to the unified Universe and we openly request all skeptical review. In April of 2024 I will have been working on all this twenty years. I have yet to be able to break it, and I’ve tried, hard. The only thing that has happened is strengthening what was already there. I’ve been working on this website actively since 2019 and every bit of net new science dovetails within hours if not minutes. The holistic conclusion about all of it culminates in an exceedingly compelling case: Elegant Reasonism is the path forward and it integrates philosophy and science to seek truth as a function of the unified Universe.

Failure To Recognize Unification

It has been said that the first steps toward an understanding of the real influences controlling Nature required a disentangling of the true from the purely suppositional. There is in this stream of consciousness the thought that mathematics is the only answer. The mathematical sciences are just as much a science as any other within that master domain of discourse, which is one reason those constituent areas employ mathematics. The orthogonal element no one saw coming was Langer Epistemology Errors, much less the implications and ramification of having made them. The fundamental assumption humanity has historically made was commission of such errors. Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish fundamental foundational context whose abstraction constructs constituted the basis of such errors. We wielded the talisman of science as if it were Excalibur. Never did we consider whether or not the abstractions constituting that foundation could philosophically close to unification or not. Many in the modern era segregate in their minds philosophy from science, holding sacrosanct the instrumentality, equipment, laboratories and methodologies which conspire into the mechanisms manifesting the jaws of LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Review Integrity

When a paper is written, and peer reviewed, are all constructs considered real taken into full systemic account, or are some of them ignored under alleged simplification rules? Is spacetime among that set of constructs? Is mass among those constructs? If that latter is among those constructs is the spacetime-mass interface taken into full account of consideration? All mass warps spacetime, correct? Or is some mass receiving special discompensation? If that latter interface is in fact taken into account, then it should be a straightforward matter to then employ a common real geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference relative to and respective of this paper? Perhaps this is a bit snarky because we already know that status quo thinking modeling reality can not employ that common real geometric basis point exactly because that interface is ignored in the vast majority of every paper ever released. The point being made here is that we are so used to ignoring certain elements that we do it without even thinking about it. That act is so commonplace that when you see it called out, that call out, seems out of place, rather than an act of scientific discipline.


Map of Dark Matter in the Universe
Dark Matter Filaments

Under The Emergence Model that we are products of the intrinsic nature of its core constructs is perhaps not the point; rather that everything real is connected or related to everything else through that same nature is. One of the most astounding insights developed is that the cogent description of M5 doesn’t arbitrarily create ‘normal’ or ‘dark’ matter, it naturally follows Knot Theory. There, configurations entangle as a function of density and saturation of respective and relative constructs. Configurations are complex composite structs and naturally include lower ordered configurations within higher ordered constructs. What that means is that all kinds of configurations contain not this or that types of matter but both types intrinsically and inherently. If it helps you to think they are hybrid, then ok but in this context hybrid connotes something not normal and this type of integration is quite normal (under The Emergence Model).

Perhaps ironically so is that the only thing truly in isolation is everything real. Even in the Bang to Bang scenario, matter is clumped by ‘bangs’ manifesting essentially islands in the vastness of space as defined under The Emergence Model. Maybe we can take solace from superluminal rapidity, but while that makes spanning intervening distances at least theoretically possible, it also makes slowing down damned near impossible. All of which conspire to create something of a challenge for inter-universe travel (e.g. particle horizon to particle horizon). God forbid all this turns out to illuminate nested black holes and we are in but in an intermediate layer of such. Infinite regression both up and down scales seems unlikely. This one scale is quite complicated enough.

Comparative State of Development

All of what you find within this website, and too within the pages of the original systems review, insightful as they may be they are still lacking in an array of detail that will come with time and maturity. One of the primary areas of R&D going forward will be architectures of mass and how they manifest phenomena and properties. At this juncture we also can not rule out that there won’t be additional Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) beyond the eight recognized enumeration baseline set. There may be any number of recognized iterations within each enumeration. Right here, right now all that is in front of us. However, the point here is that these types of questions are outside the domain of status quo thinking modeling reality. Contemplation must be mode shifted to include other Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs). Some will no doubt attempt to use standard approaches not realizing, recognizing, or perhaps a simple lack of respect for EIM boundaries. Systemic relationships will suffer and collapse under such negligence. Elegant Reasonism is designed as it is for reasons stemming from decades experience with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards, Baldrige and other business process reengineering programs.







If you appreciate our work and efforts please help us keep the lights on.



#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: