Compellingly Lucid Clarity

This article is likely not going where you might think it is, even if you are familiar with alleged elegant experiments that “prove the Universe” is locally not real. Those folks are asking the wrong questions, and everything behind this article and on this website proves that. If it is not locally real, then nothing else is either, and my conclusion is that the unified Universe is as real as it gets (and my experience has been that the more you understand about what has been done here, the more you are likely to agree with this body of work). As these scenarios play out it is incumbent on investigators to ask the right questions in the right way. Otherwise you are fighting your way out of a very wet and heavy paper bag. In short, you are held firmly within the ensnaring grip of LEEs Empiricism Trap.

Understanding Where We Are & How We Got Here

For you Star Trek fans, the situation we find ourselves in is akin to the TNG Season 6 Episode 12: Ship In A Bottle. The one question that none of the institutionalized bastions of quail bevvies ask is whether or not the fundamental premise and basis of their status quo thinking modeling reality closes to unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration before it enters science. How do you know whether or not that is the case? Simple, see if you can employ a common real geometric basis point for every construct considered real in every frame of reference. Can you do that? I’d wager not. After you have discovered that such a basis is not being employed, understand that is also the reason those same reference frames can not fully couple all real objects to all appropriate forces in those same reference frames. The science of mathematics requires a geometric basis point for all valid geometry, and if you do not have one the case being promulgated is just as invalid (in the real world) and the geometry it demonstrates. The validity however is useful in logical realms, but employing such cases in logical realms and then turning around and claiming them real constitutes commission of Langer Epistemology Errors and these types of mistakes are epistemologically fatal. The situation civilization finds itself in today, simplistically, may be dissected by understanding both holistically and individually various factors or facets of the scenario:

Factor/Facet No 01: Susanne K Langer in 1948 published a treatise from the body of her work that establishes what herein we call: Langer Epistemology Errors which occur when abstractions are erroneously mistaken for actual reality. The implications and ramifications of making such an error, she points out, is epistemologically fatal (e.g. one can not recover that philosophical case).
Factor/Facet No 02: Information sciences, most especially Systems Engineering principles, practices, processes, indeed too the profession make it clear the relationship between logical and real systems. Something can be absolutely 100% logically correct yet remain in reality different (e.g. reality instantiates logical views of it, the reverse is not necessarily true). It is historically important to remember that the professional organization for Systems Engineering, INCOSE, was not established until 1990. Also see the Guide to Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK). Is any given construct real or logically correct? If it is real is it taken into consideration in every case? Characterize 100% of all real constructs relative to the science on which they are based and prove reality instantiates the logical view of that construct. That is the logical view is instantiated by the real view. Under The Emergence Model, M6 instantiates M5 and all of it holistically closes to unification across the entire entanglement gradient for all Event Frames.
Factor/Facet No 03: Failure to recognize the first two factors results in a situation where the fine line between Principled Laws established as a function of the context made manifest by the model of reality, (herein referred to as Encapsulated Interpretative Models EIMs), being employed can not be discerned from the actual Laws of Nature (e.g. reality) instantiating them. If you do not comprehend Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) it is easy to confuse model context with reality. There is a fine line between those two that should never be crossed lest you be guilty of committing LEEs.
Factor/Facet No 04: Failure to recognize Factor/Facet No 03 carries with it the potential of resulting in investigators adopting a monolithic approach to the proverbial road to reality. Because investigators cross that fine line they fail to be cognizant of the distinction between being congruent (only) with EIM based Principled Laws and actual Laws of Nature. The consequential result is that monolithic approach because they erroneously believe they are dealing directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. This situation is a quintessential example of how one falls prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap.
Factor/Facet No 05: Failure to recognize any of the preceding factors erroneously creates the illusion that science in isolation can answer the most pressing questions of the universe.
Factor/Facet No 06: Failure to recognize the preceding factors fails to recognize the implications and ramifications, in fact whole domains of discourse are overlooked, dealing with the ability to discern logical distinctions between completely logically correct models and the reality instantiating them. Richard P Feynman routinely pointed out, in the 1950s, that science can not distinguish between multiple theories that are all simultaneously logically correct, all have consequences that are the same, and which agree with experiment. And yet still humanity failed to see the relevance of reintegrating philosophy and science. In my opinion, Feynman was oh so close to figuring all this out.
Factor/Facet No 07: Directly resulting as a function of preceding factors above creates an erroneous segregation of philosophy and science that is incongruous with the unified Universe since the concept of unification demands and requires the integration of everything real necessarily requires them to be integrated, not segregated. Development of the laboratory exacerbated the schism between philosophy and science creating something of a slippery slope leading directly into the jaws of LEEs Empiricism Trap. One derivative of the original systems review is recognition that Elegant Reasonism constitutes a net new superset epistemology which sources and seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. Empiricism is subtended to Elegant Reasonism as are other epistemologies, all of which are statistically weighted relative to and respective of their ability to manifest everything real in context of the unified Universe. The framework analytical layering is specifically designed to facilitate maximum analytical capability to discern and distinguish logic traps of all sorts.
Factor/Facet No 08: Systemic relationships and patterns are very often restful in their nature. This is especially true when conversational context is misconstrued or miscommunicated because all parties involved are not cognitively aware of the holistic context. For example, presenting insights developed by Elegant Reasonism to 3rd parties who are unaware of the means by which they were developed are presented out of context. Great care should be taken to assure that all parties participating are cognitively aware of both the insights and the means by which they were developed.
Factor/Facet No 09: Failure to recognize human physiological implications, discussed by Langer, that result in the physiological senses sending signals via the Central Nervous System (CNS) to our brains that result in instantly furnishing abstractions in order for us all to cope and deal with the environment around us. Humans in many ways are predisposed to commit Langer Epistemology Errors through no fault of any individual. On that point there is no human that has ever lived, circa 2024, in the history of Earth that has not committed such errors. (So, be kind.) Mistaking abstractions for actual reality constitutes what here is called a Langer Epistemology Error, and again such errors are epistemologically fatal.
Factor/Facet No 10: Caution: this factor is anything but obvious. Because commission of LEEs exacerbates Factor 3 above erroneously creates a pervasive belief in something of a monolithic consideration of reality. The implication of that is the belief investigators are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it. Pick any example you wish, ultimately every foundation will be a collection of abstractions subject to the holistic analysis we are undertaking herein. Which in turn subjects them to systems engineering and information theory in order to mode shift them into alignment with the unified Universe. It is this factor that motivated us to mode shift the Baloney Detection Kit. Clarity in all of this means breaking out of monolithic approaches and embracing the implications of a pluralistic approach.
Factor/Facet No 11: Failure to recognize the implications and ramifications of the preceding factors have on cognitive biases results in a failure to recognize the implications of those highly invested in status quo thinking modeling reality. This in turn creates scenarios where human standard stages of grief will necessarily transitioned in dealing and coping with associated paradigm shifts required. Consequently if these factors are ignored then the need to employ transformational leadership is not effectively realized.
Factor/Facet No 12: Failure to reintegrate philosophy and science in a fully compliant manner consistent with what we call “The Realm of The C’s” creates conditions essentially ensnaring the innocent firmly in scenarios akin to LEEs Empiricism Trap.
Factor/Facet No 13: Is in itself multifaceted and deals with neural plasticity and something we call Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). Neurons that fire together, wire together, and it is that fact that fundamentally creates an individual’s worldview (e.g. their basis for interpretation of their experiences). The choices we do or do not make, matter (no pun intended). Ironically when an individual embraces Elegant Reasonism they enable and empower the unified Universe to know itself. So much so that the process is recursive, incessant, and self-correcting (if they are honest with themselves).
Factor/Facet No 14: Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework epistemologically supporting truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which developed the first fully compliant, (e.g. standards based rules in context of the realm of the c’s), Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) closing to unification: The Emergence Model fundamentally addressing all problems, challenges, and issues regarding the ability to perceive and engage the unified Universe as a net new epistemology within the domain of discourse that is philosophy.
Factor/Facet No 15: Conflicts of interest, business of education, standards, accreditation, and more. Bastions of institutionalized processes, interpretation, etc. will likely feel pressure or competitive threat, and so well they should. SOLREI INC has promised the SEC not to pick and chose winners, but to allow the free global economic market do that.
Factor/Facet No 16: Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) create fundamental interpretative context. This factor is a relative of Factor/Facet 03. The implication of this insight is that relationships and patterns in one EIM may not carry over to a different EIM. A contextual boundary exists between EIMs such that they must be analytically mode shifted in order to effectively traverse the process decision checkpoint flowchart (PDCF) outlining enabling effective mode shifting EIM to EIM. “Tweaking” any given model pollutes that iteration’s systemic analysis exactly because of the challenges of mapping, testing, measuring, etc across orders of magnitude in geometric complexities creates unmanageable scenarios. That problem was solved through Elegant Reasonism Rules requiring EIM iteration and the use of either our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its relational database equivalent.
Factor/Facet No 17: Integrity analysis continues to report solid results. Status quo thinking modeling reality believes real constructs found here to be logical in nature. For example, the core constructs of M1 and M2 conspire in a manner as to preclude ever achieving unification exactly because they manifest the spacetime-mass interface across which nothing real can transition without first conversion to energy. The very real implication and ramification of that hard cold fact precludes employment of a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. That same insight also precludes those same objects to be fully coupled in those same frames respective to all appropriate forces. The Emergence Model reconciles those issues. It’s just that simple.
Factor/Facet No 18: The Emergence Model is scale invariant and isotropic end to end spanning the entire entanglement gradient and supports both the emergent and convergent vectors; Bang to Bang. Along with The Emergence Model comes the Event Frame and Local Frames. The cogent description of M5 manifests core constructs whose intrinsic nature derives everything real through interactions of Architectural Mass spanning the entanglement gradient Bang to Bang.
Factor/Facet No 19: Elegant Reasonism is a dis-intermediating asset. By that we mean that the only defense to all this is wielding Elegant Reasonism more effectively than your competition. Apathy will only leave you at the mercy and whim of deep pocketed adversaries. Lessons may be extrapolated here from Sun Tzu, military resource logistics, and more. To that end we have outlined the implications to enterprise globally in the presentation: Business Impact In Unification’s Wake. Apathetic behavior will only exacerbate competitive challenges and aggression.
Factor/Facet No 20: The communications problems and challenges represented by all this are anything but new. Plato wrote about similar challenges in book seven of his treatise ‘The Republic‘ in 360 BCE, some 2,300+ years ago and presented online here. These challenges are consistent with coping and dealing with human standard stages of grief.
Factor/Facet No 21: An 1988 IBM Systems Journal article entitled: Computing As A Tool For Human Augmentation remains essentially true despite all the intervening technology changes. These factors apply to Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems every bit as much as they do to humans. The unified Universe does not care whether your are natural or otherwise. The cautionary warning is that AI might be faster and more broadly able to engage, but the question here is about its epistemological source of truth, foundational epistemology, and the Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) it employs. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If global enterprise is not careful they will find themselves deep within Mordor before they understood how they got there. The fundamental point being made is that if you automate that which should not be automated you will only succeed at doing bad things faster.
Factor/Facet No 22: The original systems review, whose 828 pages of notes are online here, enabled me to reverse engineer relationships and patterns so that a single cogent paragraph could be written enabling the complete manifestation of everything real (e.g. everything real can be a derivative of this paragraph). To be clear this paragraph was written last, not first.

Holistic Analysis

The unified Universe is in fact locally real, but you must recognize all ten of the above factors to understand that. The model which Albert Einstein created, (e.g. EIM M2), is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed in order to gain the precipice from which the unified Universe may be both perceived and engaged. The problem, challenge, alternatives, choices, rationale, and next steps must all be in context of the above factors – or the wrong decisions will almost certainly be made. Critical Situationally Aware Thinking (CSAT) has now been fundamentally redefined in context of the above factors. Conversational skills capable of discerning, instantaneously, the source of truth for any given assertion in any discussion or debate are essential going forward. Statistical analysis only works if, and only if, 100% of the influencing factors are included and if your analysis does not close to unification, then neither do your statistical conclusions. That previous sentence should send shock waves through global enterprise, risk management, and insurance industries. We have outlined many of the Business Impacts In Unification’s Wake.

Example Resources / Insights

IUWP01 S22 Certainty? No! High Confidence & Why! White glossy mug
$12.95 – $16.95 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page

Problem

Implications and ramifications of innocent commission of LEEs is locking civilization into a dead end, (e.g. chasing red herrings) scenario.

Challenge

Status quo arrogantly believes it is the only source of truth, qualified to develop such capabilities resulting in apathy or intense reactions during early stages of grief associated with needed paradigm shifts. This often results in corrupted manipulation of an array of information platforms, programs, and policies creating marketing barriers to entry, knowledge barriers, directly influencing knowledge management and effective communications for subsequent peer review, experimentation, and application.

Alternatives

Allow the status quo thinking modeling reality to implode under its own volition.
Seek out angel, venture capital, and stakeholder funding to operationalize an ideal scenario to inculcate these insights across civilization.
Establish a benchmark source which increasingly can not be ignored and allows individuals, groups, enterprise, agency, and entire governments to assimilate at their own rate of change under free market/enterprise rules.

Choice

Rationale

The arguments for Elegant Reasonism, even at this stage of development (nascent though it may be) is compelling offering potential beyond measure or comparison. It quite literally places the proverbial Keys To The Kingdom at humanity’s fingertips. Elegant Reasonism illuminates what status quo thinking modeling reality can not fathom to even posit questions. For example, what lay beyond the particle horizon? The Emergence Model posits intrinsically – more of the same, essentially establishing a steady state beyond the particle horizon and does so Bang to Bang.
Worldviews are typically not going to change unless individuals holding them are motivated to change them in some manner, and until that happens will believe they hold the high ground position.
Exactly because the above factors conspire with one another to create what amounts to a self-reinforcing delusion for status quo thinking modeling reality predominant communities are blinded by past success and any attempt to penetrate those venues will be in vain and waste valuable resource. Let them implode under their own weight.
Many concepts here once encountered can not be divested and constitute significant erosion factors for established bastions of institutional status quo thinking modeling reality. Time is on our side.
Credentialed defenders of status quo thinking modeling reality, and their publishers, ultimately have to answer to trustees, boards of directors, stakeholders, shareholders, and other groups who demand results and ROI; which will place significant pressure for justification on why they can not achieve unification (and we have already explained why they never will). Students may submit to authorities but even they must ultimately reconcile and justify their debts. The point is that global economics will normalize the environment.
Exactly because Elegant Reasonism addresses fundamental unification there are no limits to the domains of discourse in which participation at some level could not be engaged. Doing so becomes a function of time, resources, and a will to prosecute. SOLREI INC has no particular urgency. Global markets are about to encounter volatility unlike any previously experienced. When they do they may find acquiring these skills is taking longer than the time they have available. Our very strong suggestion is that they begin that journey now, right now.
The merchandise crafted in the online store is specifically designed to facilitate team oriented debate and appropriate learning situations.

Next Steps

Redesign the website to shift participation decisions squarely with the user. Mostly done. A few tasks remain.
No net new science has broken Elegant Reasonism since its inception. Every review taken has only strengthened the approach and its momentum. The user base has done nothing but grow and while generally slow, it is incessant as expected. However, we continue to sample net new science for opportunities to improve and we invite the expanding user base to do the same.
SOLREI INC has published its intent to comply with Baldrige and NPEP standards, likely over time as our resources are negligible to move faster. The Original Systems Review Notes have been released and are available here and are exploited electronically for content.
The largest peer review in civilization history is underway as the entire population of Earth has access to these materials.

Owner

We can only show you the door. It is up to you to walk through it. The proverbial ball is in your court.

Unplug

Fictional Characters Trinity, Neo, Morpheus from The Matrix Triology

The metaphor of “unplug from the matrix” might be a bit campy but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. The perception that the Universe is locally not real is a derivative of the holistic list of factors/facets listed above, most especially Nos 07 and 16, but even if you are aware of that and maybe have an inkling that you have been ensnared by one logic trap or another the question then is how do you escape the trap given all of this. I wish there were a silver bullet but the truth of the matter is that you are inside your own cage made manifest by your life experiences. Only you can take the necessary action, all we can do is show you the path to the door and we have literally laid the Keys To The Kingdom at your finger tips, right here, right now.

When you believe what you are working with is reality, and your experiment proves your thought process is wrong (e.g. suggesting that locally the universe is not real) then perhaps it is status quo thinking modeling reality that is amiss and not the actual unified Universe. Perhaps some reflection is in order and maybe, just maybe, a reset button needs pressing.

Some Puzzles

Glass Half Full/Empty — Glass Half Full or Empty? Which is which

Superficial observation of the image of the glass at left shows it is half full and simultaneously have empty as well. Some physics people might say, no the glass is completely full – just of different materials, but they’d miss the point. Those only providing a cursory glance might report the glass is half full of a clear liquid and half full of a clear gas, and they would be correct. The only clue to which is which in this image is the meniscus of fluid/gas interface. The glass is in reality inverted in a tank of clear liquid with a gas bubble holding it to the surface. The image has been rotated to make it appear as if it is right side up. The point being, details matter. Another point might point out the value in rigor.

Let’s try a different puzzle. The point in this next scenario is not necessarily whether or not you know the answer and many of you might already know how to solve this puzzle and that’s fine. Our question at the end is just as valid for you as those solving it for the first time, and no we are not going to give you the answer on how to solve it here because the journey in solving it is the point here. On any writing surface draw three rows of three equidistant dots, nine in total. Connect all nine dots with exactly four straight lines without ever retracing any part of any line. The point of this puzzle here is about all the factors that inhibit you from recognizing the solution. What constrains that recognition? Extrapolate those experiences out to solving other types of problems in the real world.

Optical Illusions — Can You Mentally Flip These At Will?

Part of the point in all of these various puzzles is how the mind works. The caption of the image of the plates at right asks if you can flip the plates at will. At some point you will be able to do that. It, like many other challenges is a skill that can be learned. The distinction here is that it teaches mental flexibility in contextual dynamics and that is a skill directly applicable holistically here.

Why Is The Speed of Light Constant?

Stating “because the results of every interferometer experiment reports that value” is declaratory in nature and violates Baloney Detection Kit rules. Some might want to refer to Einstein’s original treatise: Relativity. Now holistically considering all of the above factors/facets into account, and perhaps also the set of Thought Experiments from our original systems review I’ll ask a rhetorical question: given that every experiment ever conducted always reports the same value for the speed of light. Describe why is that true without violating any of the rules from the Baloney Detection Kit. That is to say, no declarations. You must explain the mechanical mechanisms nature uses to manifest the truth of your description. You must declare which Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) is providing the context of your description and 100% of all abstractions employed must be quantified and codified within either our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent and include every construct considered real, especially including (but perhaps not limited to): mass, energy, space, time, motion, inertia, stress, tension, shear. Any constructs combined into hybrid constructs must be completely rationalized characterizing patterns, relationships, and interfaces between all constructs that influence other constructs, being exceedingly careful to fully explain all in context of the unified Universe. If your explanation can not establish clearly being able to employ a common real geometric basis point for every assertion then explain why that is so. (I know why you can’t but do you?)

Now that we have the set up: Rhetorically what problem was Einstein working to solve when he wrote Relativity? Exactly the question posited in the section title above is the answer. So, looking back then at his words, not someone else’s opinion of his words, but the original work done by Einstein: is that work logical or real? In answering this question remember that there are zero cases where humans can characterize anything without employing the use of abstractions. Remember too that abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Then too carefully reconsider all of the above factors/facets, most especially No 3 because we are looking for how actual reality instantiates that result not a logical description of what happens.

When you look at Elegant Reasonism as a utility process employing a technological framework seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe, perhaps over time, it becomes clear why the plurality Rules are in place, because it is important to understand why things fail as much as it is why they work. When you encounter phrases like “We imagine…”, or “in space”, there is a specific depth of taxonomic linkage to core constructs that must be established. Do those phrases imply a container? If so where is the basis of that container? Again, is the characterization logical or real? Write down a single paragraph compliant with the realm of c’s that describes the logical view and how the real view [that] instantiates that logical view. Then begin to illuminate to illustration how that paragraph manifests everything real across all scales and spanning the entire entanglement gradient from the smallest to largest constructs. When you accomplish that you will have essentially replicated this website.

So, how do we answer this section’s question? The answer, in context of M5 (which closes to unification), is that the speed of light is only constant locally. Cosmologically the speed of light is governed by Rapidity (e.g. consistent with Edwin P Hubble‘s body of work). Ultimately all of the various insights mode shifted into alignment characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang.

The Innovator’s Dilemma

There are any number of examples throughout history of technology supplanting manual labor from Robert Fulton’s steam engines to hydraulic pistons in heavy construction supplanting steam driven machines. Steam locomotives being supplanted by diesel electric locomotives. Oil engines in marine environments, especially in military applications being supplanted by nuclear power. Elegant Reasonism is too a disruptive technology that global enterprise would do well not to ignore. See: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact for the reasons why.

The only effective business/competitive defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding it more effectively than your competition. Ignore it at your own peril. We promised the SEC that we would not pick winners and losers; that we would allow free enterprise to direct the flow of evolution and the impending market volatility. The implications and ramifications are not lost on us, but we are few and in the end you are in control of your path, not us. All we can do is turn the lights on to illuminate the path. What you do and where you go after that is entirely your own choice.

A Hindsight View From The Precipice

Every net new science test has, so far, passed exceeding all expectations and penetrating all the associated chaos and cacophony Elegant Reasonism has remained intact. Try it, break it if you can.
The unified Universe is real in every case and scenario. If your experiments don’t show you that reality is real then that experiment and your thinking about it is flawed or incomplete, not the unified Universe. The actual real Universe is unified whether or not your view of it is. Patrons here have access to original systems review thought experiments being brought into this website where many examples are being mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe and Bell Inequality Experiments represent such examples where those producing results that violated status quo thinking were, at the time, dismissed as erroneous because the rest of that flock could not fathom the evidence being presented. Those results are holistically consistent herein and they do mode shift relative to and respective of the cogent description of M5. Perhaps this is a clear example too of insights that must be presented within cognitive comprehension of the process used to develop them.
What Albert Einstein created beginning in 1905 was then and is now absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of the unified Universe.
Unification demands everything real be integrated. Consequently neither philosophy nor science individually in isolation is the answer. Rather an integrated, holistic view is required.
Under The Emergence Model its core constructs may individually be taken as a system, implying that everything real is a system or system of systems.
None of what has been accomplished here could have been done absent the influence from acknowledgements on whose shoulders facilitated development of what you find here today, and that most especially includes: Albert Einstein, Susanne K Langer, and Lev B Okun.

There is not room on this page or even in the computer hosting this entire site to represent all of the various aspects that could be mode shifted to present evidence in context of the unified Universe, if for no other reason than such a task necessarily includes everything real. “Everything real” means everything, everywhere, and that includes every object ever imaged by both the HST and JWST platforms. It also includes every object ever analyzed by optical spectroscopic analysis, or spanning the electromagnetic regions through radio telescopes, or even by LIGO. Remember, the answers to the standard what, when, why, where, and how questions may shift EIM to EIM as those phenomena are mode shifted. Thought experiment TE-0069: Why Are Newton’s Laws True? The traditional knee-jerk answer really explains what happens, not why it is true; all of which demands deeper explanation, ultimately providing the realization that Elegant Reasonism is the correct path illuminating the unified Universe to illustration by effective investigators.

Rhetorically if you can not fathom the unified Universe: employ common real geometric basis points, fully couple all reference frames, then what is it do you think you can not fathom that is being left out of your approach? Are you humble enough to even find out or do you think you know it all? I certainly don’t and I invented Elegant Reasonism. When I first started in on all this back in 2004 my expectation was that I would break it rather quickly and prove status quo thinking correct, but that’s not what happened. What happened only strengthened this approach, and over the last 20 years, two decades, the process and framework supporting the epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe has done nothing but get stronger and more powerful. Ignore my thoughts on it. You try it. You see if you can break it. I couldn’t and I believe I’ve tried in earnest. I’ve shown this to all sorts of folks. I had a nuclear engineer tell me that no one, anywhere, will ever be able to prove that what you did is not correct. While gratified, that’s not really the point. The point is what we can do with all this such that civilization is revolutionized into new realms of endeavors. New transportation technologies, new devices spanning the global economy. Being able to remediate nuclear waste. New pharmacology for medicines and chemistry capabilities for industry. Such new capabilities are worth suffering the vitriol that has in the past been directed at me personally. If this helps us to realize an enduring and strategic sustainability to persevere so we may venture into the cosmos then I’d be happy. Even if that venture quest is within our own biosphere for all the reasons that have already been discussed herein. Just because things aren’t playing out as we had envisioned as children does not mean there won’t be exciting and dramatic opportunity.

Compelling Congruence

Everything on SOLREI’s Website holistically integrates in a standards based fully compliant manner with the unified Universe. It enables employment of a common real geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference, whether Event or Local frames are employed, vis a vie the cogent description of M5 within The Emergence Model. This same capability enables those same reference frames to fully couple all forces and real constructs consistent with requirements of unification (as noted being required by Stephen Hawking). The analogy we might use for all of this is that there are roads to reality but they end at piers and wharves surrounding an ocean that is reality where truth lies within those depths. Anyone declaring descriptions of a monolithic road to reality is very likely committing Langer Epistemology Errors and does not understand why they can not close to unification. Herein, absolutely everything dovetails. The Emergence Model does close to unification, but there is no requirement to employ it to exclusion. Exclusion is, in fact, a violation of Elegant Reasonism Rules. There is also no assertion that The Emergence Model is the only EIM that will ever close to unification. I am in hopes that civilization will take all of this and find other EIMs that also close to unification and I admittedly can not fathom what they may look like. Everything you see herein exhausted my ideas, and candidly I’m very tired. The more you explore here, the more it will change you forever. When you gain the precipice of the unified Universe you will too wonder why on Earth it took so long and why the path to illumination was so fraught with obfuscating passions and human conceit. Alas, we are all human and subject to those foibles. I will argue that the case for unification here has never been stronger. That on any critical review, peer or otherwise, critically situationally aware thinking scrutinizing what has been done here will have no choice but to agree. The website is being designed to help facilitate transitioning through standard stages of grief as efficiently as possible, but always keeping in mind that leadership should always be conducted transformationally in context of effective knowledge management.