M6 The Emergence Model’s Physical View

The Emergence Model’s physical view is M6. Be warned that the emotional need to believe we are working directly with the ‘physical mode’ is a very slippery slope leading almost directly to commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Systems Engineering teaches us that all real systems have two views; one physical and one logical. Logical views are more precise than physical views for the simple reason that inputs and outputs are defined with precision and there are many different ways to physically accomplish the same phenomena. Consequently the vast majority of all effort to date has concerned The Emergence Model’s logical view (M5) and not its physical view M6.

This short 20 minute video will help to set up the issues surrounding how we all fell prey to the logic traps created by the Langer Epistemology Errors.


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.


Readers here are cautioned: if this is your first time encountering all of this that none of the words that follow are in the fundamental context of your previous experience. Elegant Reasonism leverages a philosophical framework which eliminates Langer Epistemology Errors and juxtaposes intrinsic context relative to and respective of Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs)of the Universe, one of which must now close to unification. The Emergence Model’s logical view M5, a product of a some 15 year R&D effort was the first such model to close to unification and it is included here in fulfillment of that requirement. It is included in the patent for exactly the same reason. These models manifest context. IT IS IMPROPER TO JUDGE ONE MODEL FROM THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER. BE WARNED. EACH MODEL IS DISCRETE AND UNIQUE. CONSEQUENTLY ALL SUCH MODELS ARE CONSIDERED “ENCAPSULATED” BECAUSE THEY ESTABLISH 100% OF THEIR RELATIVE AND RESPECTIVE CONTEXTS.

The Cogent Description

The Emergence Model’s physical view (M6) draws its physical basis from Most Basic Particles (MBPs). MBPs are the quintessential integer, and it is through their “intrinsic nature” all other concepts are derived. It is the MBP in M6 which manifests the three dimensions associated with all real objects not space. M6 is centrally characterized by two processes so derived; “The Fundamental Entanglement Function” which is limited by the other, Severance. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, the ‘build’ process, entangles MBPs into all configurations of “architectural mass” generally defined to follow Knot Theory, including dark matter within any given Event Frame. Severance, as an independent process, is ‘the failure mode’ of any given configuration of MBPs and represents the limits of architectural mass to remain intact specifically due to the intrinsic nature of constituent MBPs. Space in M6 is dimensionless nothing. Force, all force, is the work instantiated through the Intrinsic Action of configurations of MBPs forming architectural mass. Architecture of relative and respective constructs so configured determines physical properties which manifest. Time is an “action displacement index” of the relative and respective architectural masses in the frame. Energy is the ability of relative and relevant architectural mass to do that work.

Out of the recognized Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) M6, excepting M5, is the only other fully compliant EIM capable of writing such a paragraph.

Core Concepts

The core concepts of M6 are the enabling physical constructs enabling, empowering, and otherwise manifesting the logical view M5. The known knowns of M6 center on the various complex composite architectures resulting from configurations of MBPs. In 2019 we have no idea what those architectures look like or are. What we can say about them is ultimately derived from the above paragraph and M5’s logical view of it. There is another experimentally interesting methodology uncovered during our original systems review which will almost certainly yield interesting results by investigators worldwide. That approach recognizes that when certain aspects of M5 are set to neutral values or selected values, that it may emulate either M1 or M2 as desired. Conducting those exercises is the reason M4 exists. M4 is M5 emulating M1 or M2 depending on how those values are established. And the point here is not about flexibility of M5, which by now is obvious, rather the point is that this methodology capitalizes on what it is we already know from a knowledge management point of view. This methodology empowers investigators to ‘surround phenomena’ with the plurality of encapsulated interpretive models and eviscerate the paradigms comprising those phenomena so we can ferret out their details. Elegant Reasonism’s plurality of encapsulated models requirements, which include employment of a model which closes to unification, then layered against the analytical framework it establishes serves to manifest one of the most powerful investigative tools ever devised.

The purpose of employing these specific models in this fashion serves to empower investigative teams to explore M6. This exploration opportunity serves to manifest the single largest computing opportunity humanity is likely to ever have. Being able to completely immerse humanity’s epistemology within a capability to describe the entire Universe Bang to Bang cannot be surpassed by any other endeavor. Noodle on that for awhile and what such implications are. This quest will yield currently unfathomable insights spanning the spectrum of existence.

Something vs Nothing

The Emergence Model boils much of the theoretical physics discussion down to one discussion about something vs nothing. Nothing is irrelevant and therefore meaningless. The discussion then becomes focused on the somethings that are and real.


Space as an M5 construct is dimensionless nothing. It is therefore completely irrelevant in almost every discussion and cannot influence anything real.

Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

Most Basic Particles, or MBPs, are as their name implies the smallest possible particle. The intrinsic nature of such a construct is that it has three energy states; 0, 1, and 2. State 0 finds MBPs possessing zero energy. State 1 MBPs may entangle with at most 2 other MBPs each. State 2 MBPs possess energies exceeding Severance values for all known systems and thus may not entangle with any other MBPs until such time as its energy state falls to state 1.


M5 is centrally characterized by two processes derived from the intrinsic nature of MBPs; “The Fundamental Entanglement Function” which is limited by the other, Severance. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, the ‘build’ process, entangles MBPs into all configurations of “architectural mass” generally envisioned to follow Knot Theory including dark matter within any given Event Frame.

The Fundamental Entanglement Function

The Fundamental Entanglement Function is the intrinsic ‘build’ process and is a derivative of the MBPs intrinsic nature. There are two key aspects of this function. One is if we take the MBP as a ‘fractal initiator’ then all configurations of them are in the strictest sense ‘fractals’. The next observation is that we we define that intrinsic nature such that each MBP can entangle with at most two other MBPs each then MBPs so configured will first form ‘strings’ and then ‘knots’ both following Knot Theory. This is also consistent with Euler‘s Beta and Gamma Functions.


Severance, as an intrinsic process is crucial to comprehend. Fundamentally it is responsible for all decay and ‘system failure’ in the Universe. It is responsible for the constancy in the speed of light and the frangibility of architectural mass. Because of these two observations allows us to describe our entire Universe (e.g. the area inside our particle horizon) Bang to Bang. Clues to its existence was found in Einstein’s original mathematics and over time we will articulate it with explicit mathematical examples.  Severance fundamentally reshapes how we perceive causality.

Reference Materials

All of the reference materials below are augmented by the User Library on this system. The acknowledgements page also serves direct links to biographical folders in that library. Also linked and integrated are pages for:

Original Systems Review Notes

ORCID References will include the same as those listed below. WorldCat will also include these manuscripts.

Network Resources

Historical References

Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical references by modern information sciences standards. That would constitute ‘moving the goal post’ and is generally prohibited by Elegant Reasonism. The idea here is to present the thinking, at the time, by that original author. Where this specifically comes into affect is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs); which to make this point salient was first quantified by Susanne K Langer in 1948 and codified by SolREI INC. Another facet of unraveling historical points of view relative to requirements of unification are both logical and physical views in context both Systems Engineering and of LEEs. Subsequent to this contextual update in our thinking we are then required to employ critical situational awareness thinking that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different.

“We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”, ~ Albert Einstein


Key Insights

Almost no significant work has been completed on the physical view of The Emergence Model specifically due to the lack of resources necessary to pursue computational R&D relative to permutations of complex composite architectures of mass.



Our Shop Is Open!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #EIM #M6 #PhysicalView