of access will always be based on empirical reality. Non-possession as resolution If claims always match empirical reality, then there is no conflict. Boundaries are a given. Possession as the defining mechanism for boundaries is also a given. If entities have no cause to endow or assert priority of access over the other(s), cause to exclude is removed. The goal of claiming access will then not be to exclude. The goal of the claims will still remain: (a) one or more of the entities assert priority of access over the other(s), (b) some external force endows or demands priority of one entity, a group of entities, over some other(s). The motivation to establish priority of access will always be based on empirical reality. By extension, pre-established hierarchies of access (ownership) will not increase the frequency of consensus unless the hierarchies support empirical reality. Empirical reality always takes precedence over conceptual reality. Non-possession is another concept which resolves the dilemma which arises when reasoned reality conflicts with empirical reality. Non-possession provides for conditions under which none of the entities have cause to assert exclusivity which is not concurred by others. Contrast with some entity which has ownership of something; if some other entity has possession of that thing, the owner has the right to concede or deny the legitimacy of that other entity's possession. Possession is a necessary component of ownership, but ownership is not a necessary component of possession. This does not mean that something cannot be possessed by some entity other than its owner. It means that the owner of a thing has the exclusive right to concede or deny the legitimacy of anyone who possesses this thing, even if the owner has no intention of accessing the object of possession. Further, the owner has the ability to concede or deny his/her/its own legitimacy of possessing the object of possession. In application, ownership is often asserted when it is challenged by possession (de facto claim to access exclusive of the owner.) Non-possession denies the exclusive access of an entity by another entity. To paraphrase: non-possession says that no entity has the right to exclusive access to another entity, either by social agreement, or de facto exclusive access. Challenge posed toward possession By definition, non-possession is the opposite of possession. There is inherent conflict between the two approaches to organizing priority of access. It is notable that practitioners of non-possession