Home
About David
| | Theory Theory:
An Introduction to Nexialism
by David R. Schneider
Abstract: A new discipline is introduced which is designed to assist in the study and application of theory unification. Called nexialism, its goal is to set the stage for the ultimate unification of varying science and religions. The discipline is primarily a utilitarian tool which can help provide direction in theory study, and is interdisciplinary in nature.
Specifically, it provides definitions, principles and judgment criteria for application in any area of theoretical study. The foundation of nexialism rests on the discovery of two paradoxes: the paradox of consistency and the paradox of determinism. These are shown to be universal in nature, and highly relevant to theory unification mechanisms.
1. Introduction
1.1 Historically, each of the sciences, religions and philosophies (collectively called "disciplines") have developed their own objectives and methods. In science, an interdisciplinary set of rules has been developed called the scientific method. The scientific method is actually very minimalist, and relies heavily on assumptions which give preference to the study of science over the study of religion. On the other hand, no
comparable set of rules has been established within religion.
This has worked reasonably well in the past. But the lay public is still asking if scientific developments can be reconciled with popular religions in an "objective" manner. Some believe that scientists are "biased" against religion. Moreover, the onset of highly developed theories in some sciences (physics, for example) can be contrasted with the theoretical confusion evident in other sciences (such as psychology). Why the difference?
Many would answer that science and religion are inherently incompatible. They might further add that some sciences are more "exact" than others. Thus no answers to the above questions are likely to be forthcoming.
This is something of a defeatist attitude, and cannot be adopted until a thorough study is made of these questions. It becomes apparent that a new discipline will be required to search for these answers, and that it must provide common interdisciplinary procedures for theory creation, unification and conflict resolution. Introduced here, it is given the name "nexialism." Nexialism is the study and application of theory creation and unification: theory theory.
It is not claimed that nexialism will result in complete agreement with regard to which theory is the best, when theories are allowed to compete. However, it will allow those competing theories to be judged on the basis of objective criteria; it is up to those who support a theory to agree to apply them consistently.
1.2 The word "Nexialism" was first introduced to me by science fiction author A.E. Van Vogt in his book, The Voyage of the Space Beagle [1]. He refers, in the book, to a science of the future which relates studies between sciences or disciplines. He refers to nexialism as "applied whole-ism"; a quote from the book shows its application in helping to fend off an attack from an alien creature:
"The trouble with what the scientists had agreed on was that it was not thorough enough. A number of specialists had polled their knowledge on a fairly superficial level. Each had briefly outlined his ideas to people who were not trained to grasp the wealth of association behind each notion. And so the attack plan lacked unity."
Van Vogt correctly senses that interdisciplinary methods must exist. But these methods need not be limited to scientific methods. A common method can be developed which encompasses both science and religion. In the 1940's, Van Vogt wrote several books based on Korzybski's general semantics [2], which also stressed interdisciplinary methods. However, many of Korzybski's ideas have yet to be understood and be incorporated into the mainstream of thought. I think the reason is that general semantics stressed the importance of non-Aristotelian methods, as well as differences between theory and reality. Certainly these ideas are extremely important, but they seem to lack an obvious universal tie to other disciplines (since many do not accept that the idea that theory cannot, in principle, describe reality in an objective manner.
It is possible that certain similarities will appear between general semantics and nexialism, although they were developed independently. For instance, it will be seen that the general semantics concept of a theory, "the map is not the territory," is almost identical to the nexial definition of a theory as "a useful description of some pattern of events which is assumed to be true." They share the understanding that the theory has not been proven to be true. General semantics focuses on the differences between theory and reality, while nexialism focuses on differences between theories.
1.3 In developing nexialism into a discipline of its own, I have adopted an interpretation of its purpose and definition (shown formally in section 3.1 below) which focuses on interdisciplinary theory methods with wide application. In many disciplines, theorists are looked down upon by applications developers. This is unfortunate, since it is common that theory is the leading edge in the development of practical applications. The sophisticated nature of many disciplines leads one to believe that theory theory must itself advance.
As science (in particular) has advanced this century, qualitatively new ideas have appeared which seem to have had no prior foundations. These ideas can be generally grouped under the heading of "observational limits to knowledge" and include: relativity, uncertainty, quantum irreducibility and indeterminism. It has not been determined whether these concepts are universal between disciplines, or are unique to physics. Therefore no direct comment is provided on these ideas by nexialism. However, there is one concept of modern physics which has been directly copied in nexialism: unification.
Physics has been using unification concepts for at least a hundred years (Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, Weinberg to name a few). In each case, the following patterns emerged.
a) Consistency. As unification occurred, the resulting theory displayed greater consistency than its component theories; this was done by demonstrating a relationship between previously independent variables. This resulted in improved predictive accuracy, because more factors were explicitly considered. For example, Einstein related mass and energy, time and velocity. Weinberg showed the electromagnetic force and the weak force to be manifestations of a single force, the electro-weak force.
The previously independent variables had been assumed to be independent. When challenged, the assumption falls, and a better theory results. The assumption that variables are independent is closely tied to the Western concept of reductionism.
b) Determinism. Each unification introduced a new layer of indeterministic elements. For example, in a clever argument, Einstein showed that we must abandon the notion of absolute velocity and absolute simultaneity in favor of the relativity of each. Although the formula led to greater predictive accuracy, it resulted in a decrease in overall determinism. By taking more variables into consideration, we lose the ability to describe each individual variable in terms other than that of the other variables.
Heisenberg came to a similar conclusion with his uncertainty relations, now a fundamental component of quantum theory. Quantum theory states that the relationship between the test system and the observer must be considered; consequently, indeterministic elements are introduced which would not be present if a system could, in principle, be observed in a state of isolation.
In two these cases, the pattern was the belief (previously held) that the existing theory could explain the events within its domain as being absolute in the sense of being caused by, or related to, some finite number of factors. In principle, we could learn everything about these factors, and use such knowledge to make predictions of unlimited precision. Such assumptions are closely identified with the Western concept of mechanistic determinism.
Note: No specific critique is presented of reductionism and determinism, except to note in passing that they seem to cease to be useful when certain limits are approached.
1.4 Why do these patterns exist? This I cannot explain by way of logical proof. I can make an empirical argument, however. Consider the saying, "there's the exception that proves the rule." Implicit are the assumptions: 1) the basic rule is OK, but there's a "greater" rule which would explain the exception, but it requires knowledge of more variables; or 2) there's an element of chance involved. Thus the rule is admitted to be valid on some occasions, but invalid on others. Thus we see the patterns of section 1.3.
The patterns shown above are referred to as the "paradox of consistency" and the "paradox of determinism" respectively, and are postulates of nexialism. These are explained in more detail in section 3.2. Further, it is assumed that any two theories sharing variables can be unified into a larger theory, and that any theory can be decomposed into component theories by separating variables. Thus nexialism can be applied to any theory, regardless of discipline. The only requirement is to show that some relationship must exist between input variables (initial conditions) or output variables (inter-theory descriptions) of the two theories; normally, this requirement is not difficult to meet.
It should be remembered that nexialism is itself a theory (as are all disciplines). Every discipline assumes that there is some pattern which explains the phenomena within its domain. For if no pattern existed, there would be little point in studying it. Since nexialism is both a theory and a discipline, its merits lie in its ability to contribute to theory theory.
1.5 In the following sections, we will develop these concepts into a specific set of principles and procedures aimed at answering the questions raised in 1.1. Definitions are presented in section 2, followed by the principles of nexialism in section 3. In section 4, examples are presented which show the relevance of nexialism to all areas of study.
2. Definitions
2.1 Before beginning, it is helpful to introduce a set of definitions which can be used in the development of theory unification mechanics.
What is a theory?
This is a source of confusion for many. A theory is not something which is either true or provable (if it is provable then it is a deduction from another theory, and thus cannot be a theory). A theory is a useful description of some domain of events in terms of a pattern which is assumed to be true.
A theory is not reality. Therefore changing a theory does not change reality. Einstein once commented that if a particular theory were valid, he would be so unhappy as to give up physics and become a cobbler [3]. Why people feel this way is hard to explain, since the theory does not change reality at all. If nothing changes except that we gain a useful tool, why should anyone object?
Some would object. Treating theories as useful is a purely nexial concept. Many feel that theories should reflect the "truth," and do not accept the precept that a theory is an approximation of reality. In this view, there exists a fundamental or objective reality of some type, and therefore ultimately truth must supersede considerations of utility, efficiency or confirmability. This argument is clearly outside the bounds of nexialism, which makes no comment whatsoever about the ultimate nature or purpose of the universe.
It is agreed that if a theory is discovered which contains no assumptions, approximations or uncertainties, then nexialism will cease to be useful. But such a theory must first be discovered, since none currently exists. Most religions assert that man can never know everything about nature, even if there is a God who does. Most sciences similarly admit that no final theory will ever be discovered which explains all observed phenomena to an unlimited degree of precision.
2.2 Theories can be created easily: "all people have wings" is a theory. However all theories are not equal - the preceding one is inconsistent (with respect to observation) and is therefore not very descriptive.
Theories can cover the same domain with differing explanations. Religions frequently describe the creation of the universe in conflicting ways - can they all be equally valid? All other things being equal, they can.
Theories can give differing predictions, or give predictions with differing degrees of accuracy. Newton gave us classical mechanics; Einstein superseded classical mechanics with relativity. Yet that does not mean that classical mechanics is not a "true" theory; it works extremely well as long as the velocities involved are low relative to the speed of light.
Some theories seem to serve no useful purpose at all. These are called "trivial" theories. Replacing one theory with another which is equal in all respects is not beneficial (or efficient). Modern physics is full of so-called "isomorphic" twists on quantum mechanics (such as Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation [4]). These theories are metaphysical, and cannot be taken too seriously until a observational difference with the previous theory is identified.
In some cases, "ad hoc" theories are trivial as well. This is the typical case. In other cases, an ad hoc theory can serve as a bridge to a useful new theory. But these are rarely beneficial because they assume (by definition) more than the previous theory did. Historically, theories which are more useful have fewer assumptions rather than more.
The following sections provide a set of general definitions covering the various kinds of theories, as well as methods for judging and unifying theories.
2.3 General Definitions
a. Data: individual events or occurrences.
b. Pattern: data which displays specified similarities.
c. Theory: A description of certain types of data as belonging to a postulated pattern, which segregates the data into pattern matches and pattern exceptions.
d. Domain: The range of data covered by a theory.
e. Predictive results: The accuracy of description and prediction of the data within the domain of the theory (i.e. pattern matches vs. exceptions).
2.4 Criteria for relating any two theories, A and B (where A is introduced before B):
a. Utility: If B gives greater predictive results than A for some data, while giving equal predictive results for all other data, while A and B have equal domains, then B is more useful than A.
b. Range: If A and B are equally useful while domain of B covers additional data not covered by the domain of A, then B has more range than A.
c. Consistency: If A and B have the same utility and range, while A contains logical inconsistencies not present in B (but not vice versa), then B is more consistent than A.
d. Triviality: If A and B have the same utility, range and consistency, then B is trivial.
e. Better: If B exceeds A on one or more of the criteria of utility, range and consistency, but B is less than A on none of the criteria, then B is better than A.
f. Competing: If A exceeds B on some criteria, while B exceeds A on some criteria, then B competes with A.
g. Ad hoc: If B is better than A, but exceeds A only due to postulates of B which have not yielded any predictive results, then B is ad hoc relative to A.
h. Final: A theory which is demonstrated to have no better, and no competitors, is a final theory.
i. Perfect: If a theory contains no known pattern exceptions, is internally consistent and is not an ad hoc theory, then it is perfect.
j. Non-overlapping: If no data appears in the domains of both A and B, then A and B are non-overlapping.
2.5 Unification terms, where A and B are non-overlapping theories and the domain of C is the same as A and B combined.
a. Unification: C is a unified theory.
b. Component: A and B are component theories.
c. Independent: A and B are independent if they share no dynamic input or output variables.
d. Trivial unification: If A and B are independent, then C is a trivial unification. C is trivial.
e. Useful (or non-trivial) unification: If C is better than A, and C is better than B, then C is a useful unification. C is useful.
f. Dependent: If C is a useful unification, then A and B share dynamic input or output variables and are dependent.
3. The Principles of Nexialism
3.1 In this section, the formal objectives, postulates and methods of nexialism are presented. This is followed by an informal presentation of two of the key concepts of nexialism: variable relationships (Figure 3-1) and the science/religion unification directions (Figure 3-2).
The objectives of nexialism are as follows:
a. To develop a framework for the integration of science and religion. (Section 3.6)
b. To develop objective criteria for comparing theories. (Section 2.4)
c. To establish interdisciplinary methods for the study and application of theory creation and unification. (Section 3.3-3.5)
3.2 Nexialism is founded on the following postulates:
I. The above listed objectives of nexialism are important.
II. A theory is a useful description of a pattern of events which is assumed to be true.
III. Unified theories can be constructed from component theories, and vice versa, by identifying dependent variables and their relationships. This leads to:
a. The paradox of consistency: a useful unified theory will be more consistent than any of its component theories.
b. The paradox of determinism: a useful unified theory will be less deterministic than any of its component theories.
3.3 The deductions of nexialism are derived from combining these postulates with the definitions provided in section 2 above. Items g. and h. below are definitions I have added for convenience, so as to provide a framework for ascribing an overall objective to nexialism. This objective is provided in the next section.
a. If A and B are shown to be dependent, then there exists a theory C which will be a useful unification of A and B.
b. If C can be shown to consist of components A and B which are independent, then C is trivial relative to A and B.
c. If C can be shown to be ad hoc relative to D, and D is trivial relative to A and B, then C is ad hoc relative to A and B.
d. If C is useful then the domain of A and B can be expanded until they have the same range as C, A and B will compete with each other, and A and B will be shown to be inconsistent relative to C.
e. If A and B compete with each other, then there exists a theory C which is a useful unification of A and B.
f. Every useful unified theory C will be relatively more indeterministic than its components A and B, since C has more independent variables than A or B alone.
g. Science is the method of theory development which works from component theories towards unified theories.
h. Religion is the method of theory development which works from unified theories towards component theories.
3.4 We now have a rather rich set of tools to use when creating, studying or comparing theories. The application of the nexial deductions is called the nexial method. When the definitions provided above are applied, we obtain a more stringent set of rules to consider when developing new hypotheses. If we discover that our hypothesis, if supported, leads to a trivial or ad hoc theory, we can save ourselves the effort of further study. If the hypothesis leads to a competing theory, further analysis may be required before proceeding. The nexial method may generate more efficient use of resources in many areas.
It can now be seen how nexialism provides an effective system for debating theories, by providing some objective criteria to apply against all theories equally. Further, we get a chance to identify times when a unification will be necessary to obtain the progress for which a particular science is searching. Obviously, if we know that a better unified theory exists (by a. or e. above), we can justify spending time looking for it, rather than developing a few more competing theories.
3.5 The general method for unifying theories is illustrated in Figure 3-1 below. Variables are identified as being shared between theories. There are several possible arrangements:
1) some of the inputs to A and B are redundant; 2) the inputs of A are related to the inputs B in some newly identified manner; or 3) the inputs of B are the outputs of A, and vice versa. Apologies for the ASCII art...
Figure 3-1: Variable Relationships
1) Redundant inputs
==> [A] ==> [B] ==> becomes ==> [C] ==>
2) Newly identified relationships
==> [A] ==\
==> becomes ==> [C] ==>
==> [B] ==/
3) Inputs to one are outputs to other
[A] <==> [B] becomes ==> [C] ==>
The relationships between input and output variables are shown in taking component theories A and B, and unifying them to create theory C.
3.6 The possibility of unifying science and religion is shown in Figure 3-2 below. Again, my apologies for the ASCII art.
Figure 3-2: Nexial Theory Levels
Religion
:
:
v
/----Unified Physics----/ /----Unified Psychology----/
/-Relativity-/-Quantum-/ /-Freudian-/-Behaviorist-/
/Data/Data/Data/Data/... /Data/Data/Data/Data/.../
^
:
:
Sciences
This figure shows the basic directions of religion and science with respect to their attempts to describe the universe we observe. Nexialism shows how religion and science are related, and can (at least in principle) be unified in the future.
4. Application Examples
4.1 What are the nexial methods, and why are they important? Consider any two theories, A and B. Each appears self-consistent and deterministic (taken separately). Nexialism states that if these theories are combined to make a unified theory C, then either:
a) The unified theory is trivial, because the component theories share no dynamic variables (i.e. the outputs of one are not inputs for the other), or
b) The unified theory is useful, and the paradox of consistency and the paradox of determinism will appear.
A useful nexial theory will always highlight connections between previously unconnected dynamic variables of the component theories. Why is this so? Consider an example:
Example 4-1: Unifying Independent Variables
Component Theory A: A person with a college degree will have average earnings which are 100% more than a person without such a degree.
Input: Does the person have a college degree?
Output: Relative earnings.
Component Theory B: A male will make 20% more than a female.
Input: Is the person male?
Output: Relative earnings.
Unified Theory C: A person's college education and sex determine future earnings.
Input: 2 variables (education and sex).
Output: Relative earnings.
Note that the output data is the same for all three theories, while the unified theory never gives a less precise description than its component theories. Theories A and B claim independence of their variables, and can claim internal consistency until theory C arrives. If the variables of A and B are not independent, then C will be useful (as above) and inconsistencies are exposed in A and B. That is, A and B's predictive failures are not due to lack of knowledge in their respective input variables - they are inconsistent by virtue of not acknowledging that output is based on variables outside the theory.
So the unification is performed 1) by identifying the shared input and output variables, and 2) determining their relationships in the new theory.
4.2 On the other hand, if A and B are in fact independent, then C would always be trivial. We don't get much from a trivial unification, as shown below:
Example 4-2: A Trivial Unification
Theory A: The price of gold is proportional to demand.
Theory B: The chance of rain tomorrow is proportional to today's humidity.
Theory C (trivial unification): The price of gold is proportional to demand, and the chance of rain tomorrow is proportional to today's humidity.
Therefore, a non-trivial nexial theory can usually provide more accurate predictions than its component theories, even if input precision is held constant. Note that some causality is eliminated when the unification is performed, since variables which were previously independent are now connected. This is the difference between a nexial theory and other types. In example 4-1, this means that deterministic component theory B implies, "maleness causes increased earnings"; while unified theory C (relatively less deterministic) implies "a degree and maleness cause increased earnings." Actually, we intuitively know these statements to be overly simplistic. But it takes a nexial theory to explain why. This can be seen when the idea is extended and applied.
4.3 In nexialism, such unifications as described above are performed repeatedly from the level of individual data elements, up to patterns of data, theories, unified theories and interdisciplinary "super-theories." Such is the direction of science. Nexialism also operates the other way, from the top level of religion (theories of "everything" - see figure 3-2) down to the level of specific predictions. Note that the top-down method decries everything well while predicting specific events poorly; the bottom-up method makes good predictions in the limited areas where science has thus ventured, but is very fuzzy on the top-most unification.
By extrapolation, it becomes obvious that all theories obey nexialism, unless it can be shown that the variables of the component theories never interact. Thus, one is lead to expect that eventually all successful theories will be unified.
4.4 All modern scientific theories acknowledge the importance of initial conditions to the observed outcome. Thus, the problem of whether two theories can be unified by nexialism can be solved further by asking this question: are the initial conditions in competing theories arrived at independently? It is impossible to imagine how the answer could ever be "yes", regardless of your personal philosophy or religion. For saying "yes" means that the universe does not respect any laws of nature - and this is empirically false. Looked at another way, before any set of initial conditions, was there a previous set of initial conditions? If so, how did one set get to be the other? Doesn't this mean that the initial conditions of separate theories are therefore derived from a common, previous "ancestor" set of initial conditions?
In nexialism, it becomes impossible to maintain the idea that the various disciplines are fully independent. Regardless of your viewpoint, you must see connections between the disciplines which describe the universe; they must share some variables (or some purpose). Religion is concerned with such topics as the nature of reality or the purpose of life. Therefore it tends to see events as diverse and less connected, and so descriptions are more concerned with how the laws of nature brought us to our current state. Science classifies events into limited domains, and then seeks to find laws of nature to explain observed patterns and yield new predictions.
Thus, the apparent existence of laws of nature force us to accept the paradox of consistency and the paradox of determinism . In everyday life, this means that the interdisciplinary connections cannot be ignored as insignificant. Nexialism is important to understanding relevant relationships between otherwise unconnected data, patterns or theories.
4.5 Nexialism can be applied in science. One of the themes of science in this century has been the concept of developing unified theories of nature. Tremendous progress has been made in this regard.
However, there are several areas which appear to be making little theoretical progress: the so-called "inexact" sciences (psychology and sociology). A wealth of data abounds, but no cohesive theory exists which ties the data together. Some psychologists have begun to refer to psychology as a proto-science because of its retarded state. Others have advanced the notion that pluralism exists (i.e. there can be no unified theories of human behavior).
Nexialism can be of assistance. The method is to unify existing theories using nexial deduction 1) in section 3.3. This has been done by the author [5] for the theories of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. The result seems to be a qualitatively new direction in psychological theory, although the full impact is currently unknown.
4.6 Theology (religious science) has suffered in the twentieth century. Rapid advances in technology have given science a distinct edge in apparent contributions to modern life. On the other hand, there have been virtually no new discoveries in the area of religion. The reason seems to be that the form of religion has become more important than its substance. Yet form (frequently interpreted to be God's "truth") seems to be fundamentally important only to a shrinking group within society. It would seem that if more substance (relevance) were provided, religion could better serve its purposes.
Of course, I do not expect officials of any religion to suddenly become pragmatic; most feel that God's word cannot be questioned. Nexialism does not dispute this. However, it must be admitted that the roots of God's word (i.e. the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.) lie in fallible man's history. Therefore, to the extent that the original documents are missing, their claim as to being the word of God is clouded by the imperfect nature of human intermediaries. To the extent that such works do exist today, their translation is known to be extremely course and the subject of much debate between religious scholars. Further, the meaning of what is translated is extremely subjective, as proponents of numerous Christian faiths will attest (even when they accept the same Bible). In total, it must be admitted that any faith is consists of at least some subjective interpretations.
Consequently, nexialism can be applied in resolving disputes between differing subjective interpretations. If theologians were to ever take a larger view of God, they would likely see numerous opportunities to develop unified religions.
Note: Nexialism does not attempt to control the direction of religious science in any way, nor does it attempt to make any value judgments whatsoever. Special care has been taken in the development of nexialism to insure that no bias exists for science over religion, or vice versa. Only users of nexialism can come to objective conclusions regarding its application. Just as logic does not preclude religion, neither does nexialism.
4.7 Nexialism must be applied in philosophy, since philosophers should be able to see that there has been almost no important contributions from philosophy in some time. Philosophy is running far behind developments in science, and has had little effect on the development of modern society. The reason should be obvious: much philosophical study concentrates on the history of philosophy ("what did X really mean about Y after Z said ...") or on fruitless study of logico-rational systems (often to the Nth degree of absurdity). What's wrong with such studies? They don't seem to be contributing a thing to society. It is often said that they "might," but the fact is that they don't.
As proof, consider this: what is a short definition of the purpose of philosophy? What is its domain? The definitions are so divergent as to be almost nonsense. We must have some consensus if the study of philosophy is to be useful.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The purpose of nexialism is to provide rules for theory unification which will ultimately allow religion and science to be unified. It is not itself a philosophy. Note that the rules of nexialism are such that neither science nor religion are "favored"; that is, neither can be shown to be objectively better methods for gaining knowledge and understanding than the other. Science generates useful unified theories with limited domain, while religion generates wide-ranging component theories with limited predictive utility. Such theories compete at this time, but there is hope that reconciliation will eventually occur.
Note: Most scientists have the practical advantage over religious researchers in that they are agreed upon the validity of component theories (at least relatively so) while searching for useful unified theories. On the other hand, religious researchers spend much of their arguing over the starting unified theory. This can be attributed to the fact that scientists spend little time over trivial or ad hoc theories; the scientific method helps here. Religious researchers spend much time placing unnecessary restrictions upon themselves while seeking component theories. These restrictions tend to be technically ad hoc or trivial, although they seem to be subjectively fundamental to the religious researcher's studies.
5.2 It is easy to see how nexialism can be useful in both science and religion. Nexialism provides a mechanism for showing that each is attempting to describe the very same phenomena the universe we are all a part of. Each approaches their study from a relatively different angle. But it is helpful to keep in mind that all comparisons are always subjective and relative, until the search for the final theory is over (if it ever can be).
Nexialism has a noble purpose. It is important to establish rules for theory unification to avoid wasting time, money or effort in activities which are unlikely to yield beneficial results. This will allow all disciplines to have objective guidelines for their respective searches for knowledge and understanding. Perhaps religion and science can, in principle, be unified.
by David Schneider (c)1987,1994, 2002
Note: This work may be freely quoted, reproduced and distributed, in whole or in part, subject to common rules of attribution.
References
1. A.E. Van Vogt, The Voyage of the Space Beagle , (1938).
2. A. Korzybski, Science and Sanity , (1933).
3. A.P. French, Einstein - A Centenary Volume , (1979).
4. B.S. DeWitt and N. Graham (eds.), The Many-Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics , (1973).
5. D.R. Schneider, "An Introduction to the Nexial Theory of Behavior", (1987). Unpublished.
|
