Jerry Davidson Wheatley was born in 1943 in Pennsylvania. He was always curious about the reason for things. He became a concept-research scientist.

He thought fine-tuned reasoning could uncover answers to reality’s big questions. He refined the scientific method to seek deeper truth.

Jerry realized it was foolhardy for man to surmise what is true about reality. It was wiser to let reality “speak” for itself. Scientific experimentation does this for the physical world. Jerry thought non-contradictory inductive reasoning could do the same for nonphysical phenomena such as the mind.

Figure 1. - Color Appearance

Figure2. - Actual Color

Jerry immediately recognized this “color paradigm” could help resolve the philosophy problem of idealism and subjectivism. As a question: Is there a “world out there” or is it some kind of illusory projection?

Empirical science rests on the idea the physical world is “out there.” Though not seriously contested, that idea has not been properly established—until now. The color paradigm provided a way to explain that the physical world is separate from one’s awareness of it. Later, we learn quantum theory suggests there is no outside reality. A deeper understanding of reality must reconcile these contradictory views.

The Where Aspect Diagram.

Jerry began delineating the structure of reality. He was compelled to track down the source of this experience and learn why it happened. It was no coincident.

Most scientific revolutions result from breakthrough efforts of lone individuals. This is not something the author intended to do. It is something that happened to him, and he responded with scientific honesty. That unexpected experiences lead to new ways of understanding is no surprise. That is how scientific revolutions often begin.

Research, study, and more interesting experiences, helped to better understand the diagram. The diagram nonreductively explained and defined the brain’s asymmetric functions. It defined the basic functioning of the mind with respect to the physical world and more.

Only later did the author learn about Sperry and Gazzaniga’s experiments concerning “left-right” brain asymmetry. The Where Aspect Diagram began to explain what they found.

The diagram also correlated with one aspect of the physicist’s notion of the CPT theorem (charge, parity, and time). Other diagrams followed.

Understanding the structure of reality is a step by step process. It is similar to a jigsaw puzzle when one has not seen the finished picture. The puzzle is completed only when every piece finds its place. Each piece informs how it fits with other pieces. Pieces mesh into sections. Sections eventually join to show the whole picture.

The analogy comes full circle by substituting scientific facts for puzzle pieces. Pieces represent evidential facts. Scientific understanding relates one fact to others. Puzzle sections correspond to higher-level-scientific concepts.

Physics principles enable a systematic arranging of the diagrams into a hierarchy to represent what physics is all about—the structure of reality. The structure defines how everything interrelates. But, it did not immediately answer all questions.

The big questions of philosophy and science are answerable only when the structure of reality is reexamined through the lens of other disciplines. Multidisciplinary research produced a categorical understanding of everything.

The structure of reality defines the difference between brain, mind, and consciousness. A multidisciplinary examination of reality’s structure led to an explicit defining of consciousness. It is derived from an equation—an excellent candidate for the “Theory of Everything.”

Why is this project different? How was it accomplished? Why did it happen?

When scientific problems become intractable, they need to be examined in a new way. A refined methodology and new paradigm helped to explain away paradoxes encountered in: physics, logic and the fundamental understanding of mathematics. Solving these very problems helped penetrate reality’s deepest mysteries.

Although nonreductionistic explanations are sought, most scientists are “educated” toward experimentation.

Physical experimentation is primarily reductionistic. It concerns “what” something is. At least with physical experimentation one can easily propose and describe how he intends to accomplish his goals. Such are the ways of empirical science.

Scientists have not clearly understood how a nonreductionistic methodology works. Yet, many are aware reductionism is insufficient to categorically explain anything including macroevolution. A viable nonreductionistic methodology has not been produced until now.

Once developed, the task was to apply the nonreductionistic methodology and obtain useable results. Things need to be explained by categorical inclusion. The standard model of elementary particle interaction already sets the stage for everything to be categorically understood.

Nonreductionistic methods concern “why” something is. Seeking nonreductionistic solutions is mental. Applied nonreductive methodology involves a series of thought experiments. Even that is not an adequate description.

A simple way of visualizing the nonreductionistic process is described by the following: The serious truth seeker inductively reasons toward generalized concepts (possible solutions) that eliminate contradiction between disparate concepts (namely, ideas that [in themselves] are correct, but appear to contradict each other—Hegel grappled with this ideation). For instance, the dual nature of light seems paradoxical. The intimate connection between the particulate and wave nature of things is finally explained in this book.

Clarity of understanding occurs by recognizing where scientific concepts “fit” the new paradigm representing the structure of reality. Concepts are simplified and explicitly stated. They are further questioned by asking, “How can ‘this’ be explained?” The methodology is again refined to obtain deeper understanding. This process continues on many levels (in a hierarchy). Redressing previously developed concepts is time-consuming and helps explain why this is a long and difficult process.

Many disciplines were used in this project, including:

Physics (particularly: quantum physics, relativity, electromagnetic phenomena, and thermodynamics)

Mathematics and logic

Philosophy (the big philosophical problems help articulate questions about reality in a form amenable to scientific verification)

Biology (evolution, genetics) and biochemistry

Psychology (in depth understanding of behavior, cognition, perception)

Religion (some concepts of most major religions can be correlated with scientific concepts).

Fundamental problems are only solvable by using the broad approach offered by multidisciplinary research. Scientists will be surprised how unresolved problems in their areas of expertise only easily yield to interdisciplinary methodization.

Highly developed inductive reasoning ability was needed to uncover the nature of consciousness. The breadth and depth of learning needed to do this is astounding. Thirty years of full time work attests to this.

The test of completeness is whether an all-encompassing equation can “meta-conceptually” explain everything. The nature of consciousness and experience is revealed only after the structure of reality is completely understood. Reality is completely understood when major scientific concepts are unified in one conceptual principle.

The test of completeness is determined by an equation that conceptually unifies the Four Forces of Nature and merges Relativity with Quantum Theory. This book presents an excellent candidate for the “Theory of Everything Equation.”

The book completely defines and explains consciousness. Along the way it answers practically all conceivable big questions one could ask. The book describes how the ultimate equation explains everything.