I am glad you are getting it, Rex, and at the same time I am mildly frustrated because you are not acknowledging well enough what I am saying. I even see you using parts of what I am saying as reasons against what I am saying. Let me acknowledge at the same time, though, that I understand what you are asking. The hard part being that it is so obvious. But there are handles. I think I can win this challenge without too much effort.
The most important aspect to get this right is through pronouncing the structure in which the reality is presented. The structure of family is a collection of people, and as such it is distinct from the structure of people (period). You did let me know that you are seeing this fine point.
Let me try with another example about gravity, though I am not certain you will agree to the presented setup.
Planet Earth is a mass with gravitational properties that can stretch far out into space. Yet taking the planet itself, we find gravity at its strongest point at the surface, we find a mixture of pulls on the interior, while at the exact center one can propose that gravity is at net-zero.
Humor me, if you do not agree with this setup.
The point is that in the center of the planet, we do have matter, and with that matter found exactly in the center we can envision the weak and strong nuclear forces at play. They are right there.
Using Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of Earth, we know that team Lidenbrock experienced some interesting electromagnetic anomalies right in the center; their compasses behaved wildly.
So, we see three levels of behavior that are distinct about these forces in this one location (if indeed accepted as a correct representation).
The fact that a net-zero position is established shows us something quite important about gravity: it is collective in behavior. Where the electromagnetic reality becomes unpredictable (but present and with an effect), and where we have the nuclear forces clearly associated with the material present in this spot, gravity is the one that establishes a net-zero spot.
We see the same in space, where a binary star system establishes that barycenter somewhere in between both masses. Electromagnetism does not do that, the nuclear forces do not do that.
Both inside a mass, and in between masses, we see a property associated with gravity that we do not see with the other forces.
Whether adding them all up, or figuring out a way they connect altogether, we have to admit that there will not be a single platform on which all can sit and be themselves in their correct nature.
So, that is the point I present (and I like how you declare the fragile nature of the GUT, which was obvious to me already). Once we agree that these forces are all distinct, then how can there not be a collective force? It would be impossible for all these forces to exist and there not being an additional collective outcome.
When blending various colors of paint, we will automatically get a distinct outcome, distinct from all paint colors. So, when we have three distinct colors, we will automatically have four distinct colors because we can blend them.
Same for the forces. There will be an overall outcome that we should recognize as a distinct force.
I believe you have nothing to argue against this structural position, Rex.
The collective structure will contain (at minimum) two levels.
I mentioned the pyramid as a tool, and I read that the word pyramid can be translated (some agree, not sure all do) with "one (1) that comes forth from height" and the meaning being that unification cannot be established on the ground, but it can be established in the air (based on the various parts found on the ground, building them up to a unified concept that the human brain can understand).
--
If you give me plenty of leeway, then I will find the spot in your mind where you will agree, Rex, scientifically that is.
Personally, I think you have plenty already to agree to the point that when there are three distinct forces then we must have a distinct fourth force as well as the blending resulting outcome.
