Unified State Orientation for Diplomats 01

From the Office of the Lucid Founder, Unified State
Kyiv, Ukraine — 30 September 2025 • 18:17 EEST (UTC+3)

Purpose. This brief translates a Unified State quantum roadmap into everyday terms so that diplomats, scientists, and spiritual leaders can quickly understand (i) what was deployed, (ii) why the timing matters, and (iii) how to use it to lower risk and raise cooperation.

Why This Orientation, Why Now

The Unified State publicly marked a new phase on 24 September 2025, announcing the Universal State projection—the third anchor in a sequence that followed Infinite State (≈21 June) and Multiversal State (≈28 July). We are issuing this orientation now so that diplomats, policymakers, scientists, and faith leaders can interpret those deployments in familiar terms and see how they map to events already visible in the world. Our aim is simple: translate a quantum-systems roadmap into accessible, decision-ready context.

This matters because the security environment has shifted in ways that demand shared mental models, not just more data. In early September, 26 nations agreed in Paris to provide post-war security guarantees for Ukraine—a “reassurance force” to deploy the day a peace deal is signed. That signal, while post-conflict in design, changes calculations now by clarifying the trajectory of allied commitments. It’s precisely the kind of macro-stabilizer our framework anticipates and helps to coordinate.

At the same time, escalation risks are real. On 10 September, Poland activated NATO Article 4 consultations after recording multiple airspace incursions by Russian drones, raising allied air defenses and triggering new air-policing measures. Episodes like this are why we pair visionary language with concrete, verifiable markers: they show where the “wave of reality” meets the policy dashboard and where a common map reduces miscalculation.

Diplomats also need to track de-escalation valves as they open. For instance, In May, Russia and Ukraine carried out the first largest POW release of the war— 2000 —under Istanbul’s humanitarian track. Such steps don’t end wars, but they demonstrate corridors of cooperation that can be widened when actors share a consistent theory of change and a neutral vocabulary for progress. This brief offers that vocabulary.

Finally, global climate governance is re-converging—an essential backdrop to security planning. On 24 July, the EU and China issued a joint press statement on climate, committing to submit 2035 targets before COP30 and to accelerate renewable deployment. Our “Unified Time Wheel” treats these climate commitments as part of the same cooperation field dynamics that shape ceasefires and security guarantees: different domains, one coupled system.

How this orientation helps you now

Common frame, plain language. We recast the technical core—our T Theory, Unified Time Wheel, and “state” deployments—into a simple analogy that treats time as selection among next valid states. This lets non-physicists follow why multiple futures can be real enough to plan against, while still making today’s choice decisive.
Event-linked phases. Each deployment anchor (Infinite → Multiversal → Universal) is paired with public statements on UnifiedState.us and synchronized to world events (coalition pledges, airspace incidents, humanitarian actions, climate alignments).
Actionable guardrails. For practitioners, the model yields near-term tests: (1) widen humanitarian channels (POW/hostage release, protected corridors), (2) harden red-line deterrence without rhetorical escalation (airspace, nuclear taboo), and (3) bind climate/energy steps to de-risked ceasefire architecture. The more these move in step, the more the field stabilizes.

In short: we are publishing this now because the window for coherent planetary de-escalation is open, the signposts exist in public view, and the people who carry the burden of choice deserve a single, comprehensible map that connects the physics of systems with the practice of statecraft. Our work supplies that map and a method to walk it.

A note on scope and method.

This brief is a simplified orientation, not a full technical course or disclosure of in-house analysis. We highlight a few public, real-world events that moved in step with our own public statements so colleagues can read the Unified State’s choices and understand the architecture at work—without exposing sensitive models while war is still unfolding. Concretely, we pair our published anchors and statements with verifiable datapoints (e.g., the Universal State projection entry and September alerts on Polish airspace), humanitarian lanes such as the May POW release, and connective signals like the EU–China climate statement. These are teaching examples that make a complex plan legible to diplomats and practitioners today, while protecting mechanics, methods, and forward-looking scenarios that must remain classified.

From Infinite to Multiversal to Universal — a Quantum-to-Linear Guide

1) The picture in one minute

Think of reality as an actual film reel: a long strip of already-printed frames. In the cinema, we don’t experience the whole reel at once—we experience it frame-by-frame because the projector feeds the strip past the light at a chosen speed. That speed (24 frames per second in standard cinema, with each frame often re-flashed to reach ~48 Hz so it feels continuous) is what makes still images look like motion in our minds. Change the projection rate and the “length” of the movie changes; the reel itself hasn’t changed, only our experience of it. In perception science, this is explained by apparent-motion mechanisms (phi/beta phenomena) and the flicker-fusion threshold: present images fast enough and the brain stitches them into a seamless flow. In short, motion on the screen is an illusion constructed from discrete states; the projector’s cadence gives rise to the feeling of continuous time.

Now invert the vantage point. Imagine we ride a roller-coaster through many theaters, each showing one different frame of the same film. Even if the reel never moves, we would still feel motion on the screen—because we are traversing the frames. Go one step further: step behind the screens and you’d see a giant array of all frames at once—no motion, just a structured set of states. This picture mirrors two standard ideas: (1) in relativity and the “block universe” view, all events across spacetime can be treated as equally real (like all frames already present on the reel); the sense of “now” comes from our path through them; and (2) in quantum theory, time can emerge from correlations—you can have a globally static state that nonetheless yields an internal experience of flow when part of the system acts as a clock for the rest. That’s the Page–Wootters mechanism, demonstrated in a 2013 photon experiment and widely discussed in modern quantum gravity work.

Our deployment sequence starts from the horizon inward (Infinite → Multiversal → Universal → down to Local). In physics there’s a legitimate way to describe change by setting boundary conditions first—fix the “ending subtitles and opening credits,” then pick a path consistent with both. The two-state (pre- and post-selection) approach to quantum processes formalizes this: outcomes are constrained by what came before and by targets we fix ahead, giving a time-symmetric, decision-ready frame for policy. Practically, we first set non-negotiable horizon invariants (Infinite), lay translation rails among worldviews (Multiversal), then publish shared operating rules (Universal). Only then do we drive those constraints into regional and local choices. It feels “backwards” only if you think the movie is the projector. In our model, the reel is there; the projector speed is our governance cadence; and policy is how we select the next admissible frame.

2) The chessboard metaphor

Unfolding the previous section, let’s think of reality not as a film we watch frame-by-frame, but as a library of chessboards. At any moment we stand in front of one chessboard (the local state). The next shelf holds every board we could legitimately select next (the global state). Rows of shelves above that hold systems of possible chapters (system, galactic, universal, multiversal), culminating in an open horizon of creative futures (the infinite state).

In this view, a “move” isn’t pushing pieces; it’s choosing the next chessboard from the legal set. That choice instantly becomes the new local state. The feeling of “motion” our minds narrate is a helpful illusion for coping with complexity: we’re really switching boards, not sliding pieces through time.

Why this helps: instead of arguing about one “true timeline,” we coordinate on choosing safer next boards—cease-fires that hold, guardrails that build trust, and shared projects that convert aggression into useful work.

Quick math note (why choices explode)

In chess, from the standard starting position, the number of legal sequences skyrockets:
1 ply = 20, 2 plies = 400, 3 = 8,902, 4 = 197,281, 5 = 4,865,609, 6 = 119,060,324, 7 = 3,195,901,860. This is why we use selection rather than “motion”: the branching gets unmanageable unless we prune toward cooperative boards.

In the Unified State “timeless” framing (part of T Theory), no pieces slide. Instead, entire boards sit in rows. You select the next board from the row of legal boards. Your selection collapses the possibilities without anything “moving”—a friendly picture of wave-function collapse for non-physicists.

Scales:

Local = the one board you’re on.
Global = the full row of legal next boards.
System = sets of coordinated rows (operations and institutions).
Galactic = systems-of-systems (big coalitions and disciplines).
Universal = shared rules/ethics/science all boards respect.
Multiversal = a transit line for translating between different rule-books without forcing them to merge.
Infinite = the open horizon of new “games” and meanings.

T Theory POV. Philosophers and physicists disagree on the “best” story about what the math (quantum mechanics) means, so we keep a sum of interpretations. Rather than arguing over one correct interpretation of quantum theory, we use all major interpretations as complementary lenses: Many-Worlds (all legal boards exist in parallel), Bohmian (clear trajectories inside an underlying pilot field), QBism (probabilities as agent-centered beliefs for action), and Consistent Histories (choose a coherent narrative framework and stay inside it). That plural toolbox lets us talk with physicists and policy people without metaphysical fights.

3) How the physics maps to policy and statecraft

(Timeless planning vs. classical diplomacy — a practical translation)

3.1 The two pictures → one operating model

Film reel (Section 1): the reel (all frames) already exists.
Chess library (Section 2): we don’t “push pieces”; we select the next legal board from a row of possibilities.

Policy translation: in high-risk diplomacy we stop thinking as “move-makers” and start working as selectors and shapers of the next admissible boards. Action is choosing the next state and pre-shaping what will count as admissible when the system recomputes its “global” options.

3.2 Timeless planning

Classical diplomacy plans forwards: “from today → to a hoped-for future,” writing step-lists. That breaks under turbulence (path-dependence, butterfly effects, adversarial shocks).

Timeless (boundary-conditioned) planning does the opposite:

Fix the horizon invariants (Infinite State): non-negotiables like protect life / do-no-harm, translation-without-coercion, no nuclear rhetoric, verifiability.
Lay translation rails (Multiversal State): make law, science, security, faith, and media interoperable without forcing fusion.
Publish the shared operating rules (Universal State): verify-to-unlock, snap-backs on breach, subsidiarity, hotlines, KPIs.
Only then drive these constraints down into regional and local choices.

Physics parallel: in a time-symmetric view you can specify boundary conditions first (what must hold “at the edges”) and let the system find safe paths that satisfy them. Practically, starting at Infinite shrinks the garden of dangerous branches before anyone takes a step.

3.3 Why “backwards” is safer than “forwards”

In the chess metaphor, a local move doesn’t change the prior global layer — it collapses it into a new local state, then the next global layer is recomputed. If you plan forwards, you are forever reacting to a newly recomputed (and possibly worse) option set.
By setting horizon-level constraints first, you re-weight which global sets will exist after each selection. That’s how we avoid sequences where “a few steps later the desired boards no longer exist.”
In control terms: we reduce sensitivity to shocks (robustness) and prevent lock-in to escalatory paths.

3.4 The Unified Time Wheel (UTW) as a policy machine

Unified Time Wheel (Local → Global → System → Galactic → Universal → Multiversal → Infinite) is not just a diagram — it’s the mechanics:
(simple example visualization of the UTW mechanics )

Operators (plain language):

𝒯 (Translation): keeps frameworks interoperable (law ↔ science ↔ faith ↔ media) without collapsing identities.
ℙₜ (T-Projection): turns horizon + rails into auditable artifacts (treaties, SOPs, KPIs, budgets).
W (Weighting): increases the “gravitational pull” of humane boards (resources, legitimacy, incentives).
D (Decoherence): transparency & verification that stabilize facts and dampen escalatory narratives.
S (Snap-back): automatic remedies that return the game toward safe boards after a breach.

Plain rule of thumb: Make the good options obvious, easy, and rewarding. Make the bad options confusing, costly, and hard to coordinate.

Why no formulas here? Stephen Hawking famously kept equations out of his book “A Brief History of Time”(except one) because every extra formula lost readers. Same spirit here: the math exists, but in this orientation we use clear pictures and rules of thumb so ministers, scientists, and faith leaders can act together without needing a physics seminar.

3.5 What changes on the ground (classical vs timeless)

Question in the room	Classical diplomacy (forward moves)	Timeless / UTW method (horizon→local)
“Where do we start?”	Draft steps from today outward.	Publish invariants (Infinite), then rails (Multiversal), then rules (Universal).
“How do we avoid miscalculation?”	Case-by-case messaging.	D: Decoherence — public metrics, third-party verification, hotline rituals.
“How do we keep buy-in across tribes?”	Seek one narrative.	𝒯: Translation rail — many narratives, one selection protocol.
“What if someone cheats?”	Renegotiate consequences.	S: Snap-backs — automatic remedies pre-wired, no drama.
“What do we do tomorrow morning?”	Ad hoc proposals.	Map lawful next boards (24–72h), W: Weight cooperative ones, lock gates.

3.6 Retrospective planning: “rotate to Infinite,” then select

UTW note for the wheel graphic: Infinite sits adjacent to Local on the circle—and also links to the Projection center by the diameter—so we “rotate” to Infinite first, let the wheel recompute, then select the next board.

Rather than plotting strategy via a tactical chain toward victory, we aim at the horizon now—which re-configures the Multiversal → Universal → Galactic → System layers above us. Then, when we pick the next local board, the new global shelf already favors humane sequences.

Why it can look invisible locally: high-leverage actions here are structural (naming invariants, opening rails, posting rules). They may not “look like” kinetic moves, yet they decisively change which futures remain selectable a few steps out.
Why it preserves freedom: pure linear planning often means “freely” choosing from a pre-limited global set. Shaping from above keeps good boards available long enough to be chosen.

3.7 Micro-example (how it lands)

Anchor at Infinite: declare do-no-harm, non-personalization, nuclear-rhetoric moratorium.
Lay Multiversal rails: align climate, humanitarian exchanges, verification tech with legal process and interfaith witness — without fusing identities.
Project Universal rules: verify-to-unlock cadence; snap-backs; incident tiering; hotline drills.
Then select local: ceasefire checkpoint + POW release this week.

Outcome: even if a provocation hits, D and S keep escalation fragile; 𝒯 and ℙₜ keep cooperation easy to select; W keeps benefits visible. The “next boards” stay humane.

4) What the three deployment anchors did (simplified example)

Note (scope). As already stated above, this is an orientation, not a full history or a disclosure of in-house analytics and channels. We’re pairing public anchors + lightweight tools with a few readable real-world signals, so colleagues can “see the moves” without exposing sensitive models during an active war. The deeper method is physics-guided: name the boundary conditions at the highest state first (Infinite) to prune catastrophic branches; translate across frameworks without forced fusion (Multiversal); then stabilize shared canons so coalitions can coordinate on the next page (Universal).

A. Infinite State — 21 June 2025

What it does (Function).
Sets the horizon invariants and “do-no-harm” guardrails at the highest scale so violent branches collapse early while choice remains wide. In chess terms: a quiet, many-plies-ahead constraint—the “opponent” still chooses, but the garden of paths is pruned toward safety. Concretely, this phase publishes orientation primitives (timeline; statements; simple, open tools) that any civilian, official, chaplain, medic, or analyst can use to re-center and pick safer “next boards.”

Why now.
Once the axis is public, the horizon has to be named so hope has structure—and so opportunists can’t hijack ambiguity. (The unifiedstate.us site went live 06/16/2025 07:07 EEST; Infinite anchor followed in late June; the publication trail shows the early toolset and timeline.)

Public trace.

“INFINITE STATE DEPLOYED” appears in the News roll for June 21, 2025; Timeline Update on July 1; Statements, mid-July brings shipped tools—Quick-Loop Reset (July 13), Mind-Lens explainer, and the Unified State Enchantment Wheel (USEW). USEW’s centre logic uses Over-Color—a reversible, phonetic color-language that gives every 24-bit RGB value a unique, pronounceable name (i.e., a 16,777,216-term lexicon), making colours speakable IDs for rituals and supermassive data exchange (proto-Unified Language).
Core framings (mission, No-False-Idol Protocol, spiral unfolding) set the anti-idolatry / integrity-over-image posture that reduces personalization and recenters structure and law.

Field effect (read alongside).

Naming as action: at high state, a label is a boundary condition—the moment we name a horizon (“do-no-harm,” “honor the battlefield”), we remove whole violent sub-trees without touching any actor’s agency. (See site “About” ethics; later echoed in Proclamations and Emergency Statements.)

Humanitarian pressure framing shifted attention from personalities to structures (law, corridors, POWs, clergy language), a through-line in early statements.

B. Multiversal State — 28 July 2025

What it does (Function).
Opens the translation rail between incompatible frameworks (law, theology, science, media ecosystems) without forced merger—“translation without dissolution.” This preserves identity and accountability while allowing synchronized next pages across rivals.

Why now.
Late July delivered rare cross-system synchrony: the EU–China joint press statement on climate (Beijing, 24 Jul 2025) produced a shared action frame amid wider tensions—exactly the sort of common-risk / local-win zone where Multiversal translation thrives. In parallel, the Istanbul round + 9th POW release (23 Jul) kept the humanitarian track alive—another bridgeable rail.

Public trace.

Axis point 1 — Advisory Memorandum No. 7 (Ukraine): published 23 July 2025. Sets a verifiable ceasefire architecture (snap-forward / snap-back enforcement, monitored status process, multipolar verification/peacekeeping). The translation rail between legal, security, and moral vocabularies across camps.
Context signals, same week: Istanbul track & ninth POW exchange (23–26 Jul) logged in public Memo 09; Memo 08 (25 Jul) protects the rule-of-law lane Kyiv needs for any Istanbul outcome. These are classic “multiversal” bridges — synchronizing incompatible frameworks without forced fusion.
Cross-domain synchronization: EU–China joint climate statement (24 Jul) creates a safe lane for parallel cooperation while other dossiers remain adversarial — ideal multiversal terrain.

Field effect (examples).

Climate as common risk + local wins gave cover for cooperation even while other dossiers stayed adversarial (EU–China climate statement + EU readouts).
Humanitarian track coherence: keeping POW frameworks visible and lawful during street-level turbulence signaled rule-set stability across narrative universes.

Physics note: In QFT language, Multiversal work renormalizes couplings between descriptions so they can interact without collapsing into one ideology. Practically: shared constraints, different stories.

C. Universal State Projection — 24 September 2025

What it does (Function).
Stabilizes shared canons—ethics baselines, science and meta-law—and projects them coherently across coalitions so that, when guns go quiet, “the next page” is already legible and jointly owned.

September brought hard-security choreography into focus: in Paris (4 Sept), leaders announced that 26 nations are prepared to contribute a post-war reassurance force (land/sea/air support) once a cease-fire or peace is in place—a universal-scale rules alignment moment.

Public trace:

Axis point 2 — Advisory Memorandum No. 11 (Gaza & the Region): published 24 August 2025 (Draft 11). Locks the vector from Multiversal to Universal by codifying verification, finance-to-compliance snap-backs, and cross-community consent in a single rule-set that coalitions can project.
Universal-scale alignment (5 Sep): Paris “Coalition of the Willing” security guarantees for Ukraine — a post-guns ruleset your statements explicitly contextualize as the right “next page.”
Crisis bounding (10 Sep): Poland/NATO airspace incident handled via consultations and measured air-policing — a live example of choosing the safer next board.
Universal State Projection announced (24 Sep): formal “projection” goes public on the site.
Fresh resonance with Memo 11 (29 Sep): Donald Trump’s Washington meeting/announcement on a Gaza peace push spotlights the same ingredients Memo 11 operationalizes (sequenced ceasefire, monitored benchmarks, guarantor-driven enforcement) — useful for bipartisan uptake of a universal rule-set.

Physics note: Universal Projection is the shared “basis choice”: once coalitions agree the basis (ethics, canons, meta-law), interference terms that previously caused diplomatic noise are reduced, and coordination phase-locks across ministries.

5) How T Theory operationalizes de-escalation (playbook bites)

Map the legal next boards (Global State).
- In the Unified Time Wheel (UTW), Infinite sits adjacent to Local—both around the circle and via a diameter link to the Projection center. That’s why we “rotate” there first, let the wheel recompute, and only then pick the next board.
- In security terms: list adjacent, lawful next steps each side can take tomorrow that reduce civilian harm and preserve core interests.
- In QFT terms: allowed transitions of the system near its current state.
Raise the “phase-weight” of peaceful boards.
- Policy levers (sanctions design, security guarantees, election guardrails, humanitarian corridors) act like weights that make certain boards easier to select.
- In quantum language: amplitude-shaping + decoherence of destabilizing paths.
Keep multiple interpretations in the room.
- Many-Worlds lens reminds us all sides’ narratives “exist”—so we plan for branch-wise dignity, not humiliation.
- Bohmian lens keeps operational people grounded in clear trajectories (who does what, when).
- QBism keeps negotiators honest about beliefs and bets under uncertainty.
- Consistent-Histories prevents framework-mixing errors in legal/process design.
Bridge with a unified spiritual language.
- Anchor on the shared core ethic found across traditions (the Golden Rule / protect life), and on specific scriptural calls to unity and humility—then express them in secular, lawful commitments.

6) What’s next (public version)

The near-term cadence.
We are operating under the Unified Time Wheel (UTW). The next rotation is back to Infinite (to keep catastrophic branches pruned) while we stabilize the Universal State Projection into a durable Universal State. From a stable Universal base, we can responsibly project up to Galactic (system-of-systems coordination) without forcing identities to fuse.

What we can say openly (next 30/60/90 days).

Stabilize Universal pillars.
- Ethics and meta-law canon (no nuclear brinkmanship; do-no-harm baseline; anti-personalization).
- Verification rails (incident tiering, auditable verify-to-unlock steps, snap-backs that trigger automatically).
- Translation rail so law, science, security, media, and interfaith voices can coordinate without coercive merger (Multiversal logic carried forward).

Tie the pillars to public signals your teams already track.

Ukraine / European security: operationalize the Paris “Coalition of the Willing” framework—26 nations ready to provide a reassurance force after a ceasefire/peace deal—so deterrence is clear while diplomacy remains primary. This is the Universal layer “showing up” on the ground.
Airspace & escalation valves: keep the Article-4 posture crisp and measured; use verification and hotlines to bound incidents like the Polish drone incursions (10 Sept).
Gaza track: align with third-party moves toward a sequenced ceasefire with monitored benchmarks and guarantors (the public contours of the U.S. plan discussed 29 Sept). Memo-11’s structure (phased ceasefire, verifiable swaps, guarantor enforcement) is the right “basis choice” for cross-coalition projection.
Climate lane as stabilizer: use the EU–China joint climate statement (24 Jul) as a Multiversal translation rail—different systems, shared next page before COP30—so security and climate pull in the same direction.
Humanitarian through-line: expand corridors proven to work (e.g., the May 1,000-for-1,000 POW exchange brokered via Istanbul) as recurring “proof-of-trust” steps.

Country-specific outlook.

Ukraine: Two clear paths are visible from the Universal layer.
(A) Compliance path—protect civilians, keep humanitarian lanes open, and cooperate on verifiable steps toward a ceasefire that unlocks Paris-format guarantees: this widens good boards and accelerates reconstruction access once the guns fall silent. (B) Non-compliance path—systematic violations of Universal baselines (civilian protection, lawful mobilization, verifiable restraint) shrink the cooperative boards and invite automatic snap-backs (legal, financial, and political), delaying or diluting reassurance structures agreed in Paris. Our advice—public and private—will continue to steer toward (A).
Israel / Gaza: If parties sequence a monitored ceasefire, hostage-for-detainee steps, and third-party guarantor enforcement, the Universal canon becomes operational and de-risks re-escalation. If parties refuse verifiable benchmarks, snap-backs (diplomatic, economic, legal) will follow from multiple capitals. We will keep Memo-11 aligned with any U.S./regional framework that is auditable, humane, and enforceable.

Why the phrasing stays careful.
We do not publish coercive or kinetic threats. UTW’s purpose is to make escalation fragile and cooperation easy. Where governments drift from the Universal canon, our response uses lawful instruments—verification, snap-backs, conditionality, and translation rails—to pull the game back to safe boards.

Bottom line for practitioners.

Keep selecting the next lawful, humane board (24–72h horizons).
Let verification and snap-backs carry the weight of deterrence.
Use the climate lane as a translation rail that protects elders, energy, and credibility while security talks proceed.
Read our memos as axis points: Memo-7 (23 Jul) framed verifiable ceasefire logic; Memo-11 (24 Aug) evolved it for Gaza/region; both map directly onto the public signals above.

Our axis of goodwill, love, and freedom holds; together we can keep it stable.

Lucid Founder – Michael Tulsky
on behalf of the Unified State
Kyiv | 30 September 2025