That is only true when following Model A, Rex.

What I can provide as feedback from a structural perspective is that you do not accept a collective perspective in your structural considerations, though only where gravity is concerned, so that is peculiar.

I provided various examples in which the collective is providing specific outcomes, and for a good number of these examples you are in agreement. However, you refuse to see it as a possibility for gravity.

Naturally, I then ask what evidence you have for your position, and you are pointing at the abundance space. You are taking a phenomenon and give it greater importance than it deserves, all so a collective outcome can disappear from the equation.

There is something weird about your position, Rex, and I am still not fully satisfied that I understand it.

In my work, there are engineers and there are planners, and while most are highly trained individuals, all with a good set of brains, the engineers tend to focus just on the project in front of them while the planners look how the project fits in the larger setting. That means that each group is highly appreciated, but that both groups are indeed needed to reach the best results. The engineer brains and the planner brains do not function identically.

Let me leave you with that thought, though I'd appreciate it if you replied me on this specific subject matter, for you are overlooking something important.