sociophysics::cosmos & chaos in nature & culture. nova science publishers. ny. 2004

7/28/2019 SOCIOPHYSICS::COSMOS & CHAOS IN NATURE & CULTURE. Nova Science Publishers. NY. 2004

1/22

INTRODUCTION

The great aim of all science is to cover the largest number of empiricalfacts by logical deductions from the smallest number of hypotheses.

Einstein*

The purpose of this work is to present a Theory of Sociophysics (ToS), based on aSystem Unification Model (SUM), within a Triadic Interface Paradigm (TIP). The model willserve as the conceptual framework for the salient structures and functions of existential systemsreflected in the composition of this book. Similarly, the paradigm will provide the Archimedianfulcrum of underlying assumptions and leverage for the operating procedures which characterizeour point of view. The resulting theory will thus describe and explain empirical sociophysicalphenomena in terms of general conceptual systems.

In order to attempt such an immense task, we shall follow Einstein's dictum quoted above.Accordingly, it will be necessary to resort to broad abstractions which clarify the superficialcomplexity of the subject-matter without distorting its essential identity. To do so, one must startby making some common sense assumptions taken on faith. Upon them, a conceptual isomorphic

model, adequately representing relevant aspects of the subject under investigation, can then beconstructed. Finally, as a result of the fruitful interaction of many factors, a theory of realityshould emerge: mediating between whatever may exist out there and whatever awareness we haveof it in here.

The dichotomy between external reality and internal mentality is itself a prime axiomwhich connects percepts and concepts, by interweaving mental images into formal systems. Thepropensity of the human mind to compare experiences by making distinctions and recognizingsimilarities is the basis of the Cartesian polarity between ourselves as ens cogitans and the worldaround us as res extensa..

--------------------------

*-A footnote on footnotes of which this will be the only one. Because the facts and ideasfor this study have been taken from a multitude of sources, they are either so well known in thepublic domain as to make it unnecessary for exact citation or so altered and assimilated as tomake it impossible for particular attribution. The extensive bibliography at the end of the bookshould suffice to acknowledge the background resources used for this work and lead the reader tothe latest in-depth studies in the various topics touched upon here.--------------------------

This anthropocentric position recognizes the intersubjectivity of human knowledge as bothnecessary and desirable in understanding and shaping our reality. From this vantage point, humanbeings are the creatures of their natural and social environments, as well as the molders of bothdomains. Thus, a science of and by human beings should look for the sources of human thoughtand behavior, not only in natural and social laws separately but in the combination of both, as weintend to do here.

-----------------------------------------------

Whether one begins with the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum " or some other dictum,existential reality is largely defined by the experiences and expressions as its participant-observers.Human sensibility arises from two related sources: one consisting of the phenomenal or sentientworld and the other of the nooumenal or mental realm. The first is considered the actual world of


2/22

physics which is somehow related to the second virtual world of psychics. Our awareness isdirected both outwards and inwards, so identifying and defining itself.

For that reason, following Hume, logical positivism divides human consciousness intoformal and factual components; thus distinguishing between the inner realm of human logic andthe outer realm of empirical existence. That distinction has been recognized for a long time as thematter-mind dichotomy which is reflected in various other opposites such as thought-action,concrete-abstract, substance-essence, subject-object. This practical reflectionism accepts theexistential mirror-duality between external and internal realms by assuming the world as if itexisted in an orderly manner accessible to human reason.

Such fundamental dichotomy, however, cannot stand alone because it ignores anintermediate reality. In order not to forget the importance of the middle ground connecting thetwo diametrical extremes, it is better to utilize a trichotomy which recognizes a bridge betweenall polarities. This connection can been provided by a third concept which interfaces with bothopposites and integrates them within a single framework.

In Kantian terms, this is the formal reality, mediating between the two unknown andunknowable worlds: the inner world of mortal Man and the outer world of divine God. In

Popperian terms, it is the empirical world connecting the mental and the physical; all of which maybe transcended by the pure realm of Platonic formality or Weberian rationality. Similarly, inHegelian or Marxist theory, the transcendence is replaced by the dialectic, whose oppositionbetween thesis and antithesis is resolved by a final synthesis.

Based on a Platonic triangular format and combining Spinozan monism and Cartesiandualism, TIP elaborates a fundamental trichotomy, which nevertheless diverges from andconverges into a single cosmic unity. In between these ultimate fusions, human consciousnessperceives, conceives and compares the similarities and differences which characterize everything.Thus, reality appears to be made up of various distinct elements which can nevertheless beclassified and interwoven into a great multidimensional tapestry.

From this human perspective, we can distinguish three kinds of structural relations,

depending on the systems involved in them. On the one hand, each person is related withinoneself. These internal connections constitute the inner realm of the personality and create amental oregosphere. On the other hand, human beings also relate to the external world whichexists apart and independently of them. These relations connect people to their naturalenvironment and create the ecosphere which includes them. Between those two types of relationsare those which exist among people themselves. These interpersonal relations form thesociosphere which are at the focus of our concerns here.

The three distinct worlds can best be illustrated as concentric circles shown in Diagram010. The innermost ring represents the internal world of each human being, surrounded by thesocial system and the natural environment. Reflecting the Aristotelian dictum: anthropos zoonpolitikon; the depiction shows the sociophysical position of human nature in our scheme ofthings For purposes of this study, we shall marginalize whatever lies beyond person or nature,leaving these externalities to the terra incognita of either the subconscious or the supernatural.

This conceptualization surrounds the social by the natural sciences, indicating that tounderstand society requires a wider knowledge which must include nature. Of course, that alonecannot explain the specifics of the inner realm; but it will do for interpersonal behavioral analysis.This study will therefore focus on the middle ring and the fundamental relations which bind it toboth its internal and external components.

For that reason, the construction of this conceptual model begins by postulating theexistential polarity between the real and ideal worlds as mediated by human nature. The three


3/22


4/22

Opposing this scientific idealism which assumes the autonomy and purity of value-freeknowledge, regardless of its cultural context is scientific relativism which taints value-dependentknowledge with ideological colors and economic interests, thus emphasizing the uniqueness ofhuman life and the difference between nature and culture. Accordingly, as Kuhn proposed,scientific objectivity is impossible, the best one can hope for is intersubjective knowledge withinon a single cultural paradigm.

If human perceptions and conceptions of natural phenomena depend on their culturalcoloration, so science itself must be slanted by its geo-historical circumstances. Like allinstitutions, it should not be forgotten that the scientific estate plays an important social role andis often called to "save the appearances" by giving appropriate culture-specific rationalizations forthem; so reducing science to a hand-maiden of society.

Social realism derives from the romantic roots of Kantian and Hegelian idealism to thehumanistic reasons of Weberian and Sartrian existentialism; culminating in the neo-Kantians whodistinguished between Natur und Kultur-wissenschaften, thereby dichotomizing knowledge intoeither general causal explanations (nomothetic exigesis) of natural phenomena or personalinterpretive speculations (ideographic hermeneusis) of human ideas and actions. According to

Weber, these latter attempts could only be made by verstehen or sympathetic understanding,rather than empirical analysis.

The contemporary metamorphosis of these notions is represented by thedeconstructionalists and especialy Foucault's archeology of knowledge which tries to provide thetools for evaluating science by analyzing factual propositions to uncover their value assumptions.This epistemological relativism is carried further by the reconstructionists who subordinatescience to politics by insisting on the social responsibility and public involvement of scientists asconcerned citizens.

Although Comtean positivism (French socialism) opposes Berkelean negativism, Humeanscepticism and Spencerian utilitarianism (British naturalism) on the one hand, as well as Kantian

criticism (German idealism) and contemporary relativism (American reconstructivism) on theother; there is something to be said about all of them. Opposing points of view, such as scientificrealism and socialistic idealism may be treated dialectically by taking some aspects of both andcombining them into a larger theory of wider scope and applicability. In spite of theircontradictions, these different schools of thought are not mutually exclusive in every respect.Actually, they have proven to contain sufficient common elements to build a third position whichreflects reality better than any of them separately.

The compromise between objective structuralism and subjective phenomenalism has beenelaborated by dialectical interactionism. This third school of thought, pioneered by Giddens,emphasizes the transformative interpenetration of social structures and functions with humanmotives and actions. It is this synthetic conceptualization that serves as the basis of sociophysics.

Moving in this direction, ToS looks into both nature and culture as the combinedparameters of humanity, whose behavioral feedback in turn affects them both. As the classicalduality between logos and pathos was mediated by ethos, so the dual nature of humanitycontaining both reason and passion is bridged by culture. The human polis thus intercedes andmodulates the natural extremes ofcosmos and chaos.

As culture and history change, so do paradigms and metaphors. The simple analogies andgeneralizations used in the past at the early stages of science no longer suffice in a moresophisticated age. In order to understand the complex systems which span the contemporaryworld, we need to translate the latest scientific theories into the social arena. But, the critical


5/22

discontinuities and deep contradictions in both historical periods and geographical regions, requirea more complicated and often counter-intuitive approach which traditional studies may notprovide.

Since the social sciences deal with cultural rather than natural phenomena, they are moresensitive to space and time. Admitedly, culture influences our assumptions, agendas andexpanations. Scientific rationalism, however, decreases cultural relativism, at least among theinitiated. As the world develops a global scientific culture, it also develops a unified socialideology. Thus, although it would be impossible to divorce science from society; it is possible toextend its scope to the global system and so raise it above parochial cultures to human universals.

The reality of a global village emerging at the dawn of the Third Millennium demands aninterdisciplinary approach of systemic synthesis. This demand may not be as difficult as it seems atfirst sight. According to modern science, reality shows a remarkable tendency for uniformity andconsistency. Although they apply to different realms, its fundamental laws have been found to bethe same everywhere and always. This Principle of Universality has by now been established asthe cornerstone of the natural sciences and we hereby intend to extend it into the social sciencesas well.

We therefore accept the thesis that there exist isomorphic structures and functions not

only throughout space and time but at all levels of existence, thus reflecting the essential unity ofreality. Whenever this unity seems to be broken at one systemic level, it is in order to maintainitself at a deeper and more fundamental one. Ultimately, the infinite variety of unique forms comesdown to a few typical generic patterns.

The scientific method has been quite successful in discovering these patterns and thentranslating them into human terms. Effecting this translation, there exist three principal languagesof communication: mathematical, artistic and verbal. Hofstadter interwove these modes ofexpression in the works of Godel, Escher and Bach, thereby creating an eternal golden braid.

In a somewhat different way, we shall here utilize these means of expression: combiningnarrative with formulae and diagrams to optimize our presentation, description and explanation of

reality. Thus, art and science together will be used to provide the methods, programs andprinciples which apply to systems in general and this work in particular.

Science assumes that reality is algorithmically compressible. That is to say it is so orderedthat it can be adequately represented by an abbreviated set of symbols. It seems that the humanmind acts as a good algorithmic compressor by reducing, translating and thus comprehending itsexperiences.

When translated into mathematics, science can display an extraordinary equivalencethroughout reality. Its capacity to operationalize and manipulate symbols enables mathematics todetermine the exact parameters within which phenomena occur. Combinatorial analysis anddifferential equations, for example, provide powerful representations of explanatory theories inboth the natural and social sciences, by showing how complex systems behave through space-time.

Thus diverse phenomena may be uniformily described by a mathematical operation orfunction: , upon an actor or factor (x), denoted by (x) as expressed in the series(x)=fo+xf1+x2f2+......If an event (x) is deterministic or linear, it may be adequately approximatedby the first two terms of the series because the rest diminish so fast as to become negligible.Although, advanced mathematics will not be used here, we will try to translate basic concepts inits language, thus giving them greater uniformity and clarity. Linear approximations often sufficeto understand adequately ordinary causality, so they will be used in many cases as basicexplanations from which more complex ones can be worked out later.


6/22

There are many who believe, as Pythagoras and Galileo did, that God's book of nature iswritten in mathematics because it is the most appropriate language yet found to describe thecomplexity of reality by simple and true statements. As Turing put it: science is a differentialequation to which religion provides the boundary conditions.

It has been said that in science as in art the road to truth is led by beauty; because asColeridge put it: beauty is unity in variety. Both scientific and artistic creativity share similarqualities of imagination and inspiration accompanied by elegant expression. Some great scientistshave even gone so far as to declare that conceptual elegance is more important than empiricalconsistency. Einstein's esthetic dictum makes this attitude perfectly clear by affirmingunequivocally that beauty is more important than truth.

As a result, symmetry has become the dominant theme of modern science. In thisdevelopment fundamental physics is quintessentially Platonic. On the authority of these ideals andour own proclivity, this study will try to combine classical simplicity with logical symmetry: sothat the result is intelligible and agreeable, coherent and comprehensive. Since scientific beauty ischaracterized by proportion and measure, we will adopt these criteria as the standards for thiswork and try to apply them as much as possible without being pedantic.

This will be done keeping in mind that absolute symmetry is both perfectly ideal and

extremely bland. Reality deviates from such perfection and ever since cosmic Genesis evolutionhas broken its pristine symmetry. So, ideals, have to be tempered with experiences and therebybecome interesting as well as informative.

Since this study will be carried out at the general systems level, it will necessarily be veryabstract and theoretical. Covering such large area means diminishing its depth. The gains made inmacroscopic synthesis have to be paid by the losses incurred in microscopic analysis. To be ableto see the grand pattern and regularity of the whole, we have to ignore the unique character andsingularity of the individual. Specific details will therefore be sacrificed on the altar of generalprinciples: de minimis non curat lex.

This sacrifice need not be in vain because the details can be filled in later studies. Theheuristic fall-out from framework theories can provide powerful incentives for further in-depth

research into the various areas covered therein. Once the grand lines have been sketched, theirparticular applications and rigorous interpretations should not be long in coming.

At the present stage, drafting these principles requires an explicit description of thestructure and process that this study will adopt. Just as Gauge theories try to combine the goldentriangle of the fundamental ingredients of nature: particles; forces, and codes; we will specify thethree dimensions or parameters within which our theory will be framed:

-Context: the environment or boundary conditions of existencewithin a space-time field;

-Content: the system or substantive elements of our focuscomposed of matter-energy systems;

-Codex: the operating program or functional rules of the studybased on ideo-form directions.

These (C3) aspects form the three pronged approach shown in Diagram 001 and define ouruniverse of discourse. The diagram contains all the factors considered relevant for this study,which shall be elaborated upon in the rest of this introduction.

Following Occam's razor that entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate, as well asEinstein's quote, the model tries to explain the maximum of phenomena with the minimum ofhypotheses. The fewer the independent variables in a theory, the more powerful and compelling itis. In this way we should be able to construct the most comprehensive picture of reality and at thesame time attempt to avoid false analogies or empty platitudes.


7/22

The elements of this abstract image will be presented and described as succinctly aspossible in the next three sections. This will gave the reader a general idea of the environment ofour theory as well as its structure and program; thus providing the necessary introduction for themain body of the work which is to follow.

Every dogma must have its day.H.G.Wells


8/22

CONTEXT

We begin this exposition with the contextual reality of the subject at hand. This is donebecause it provides the background or infrastructure which defines and supports whatever onewishes to study. In this case, since the subject-matter is sociophysics, the context is the naturalenvironment within which human and material systems exist. We use this context to form theconceptual framework which sets the scope of this work.

Accordingly, the environmental perspective of our reality is a trilateral construct whichcomposes the basic axiom of this theory-building attempt. Following Kant's intuitive predicate, webegin a priori by assuming that what is considered as real depends on one's experience in spaceand time, symbolically shown as:

R={s,e,t}The set (space-existence-time) postulate emphasizes an absolute interdependence of the threeaspects of reality and combines them into the three-dimensional framework described here.

The three aspects of SET are reflected and studied by topology, ecology and chronology.Together, they suffice to define the attributes of reality in complete and concrete terms. Althoughthese notions are so elementary that they cannot be formally defined; our intuitive grasp of them

will be further elaborated in the following discussion of each.

ECOLOGYThe ecological aspects of our theory may be said to comprise the various areas and levels

of generality within which the relevant systems of this study coexist. The most important point tobe made here is that our field of vision distinguishes between inclusive and exclusive spheres ofexistence. Reality may be presented within a number of concentric spheres, much like those ofDiagram 010. The outermost, all-inclusive sphere is the entire universe, while the innermost, all-exclusive sphere is the elementary particle. Between these two extremes, there are layers uponlayers of different existential realms.

These divisions may be said to form the framework for the general ecological taxonomy

we shall use here. The classification scheme not only distinguishes between vertical levels andhorizontal areas, but recognizes a hierarchical structure which permeates both. The scheme is thuspredicated upon the combination of three parameters: areas, levels and classes.

The environmental areas of this model are evenly divided into the inner and outer worlds,as described at the beginning of this introduction. This dichotomy is an innate separation of theself from the rest of reality. Every sentient being can make this distinction between its internal andexternal worlds and so separate its own ego from various alter egos. Humans, therefore, have twomain environments: an interior and an exterior: the former belonging to the personal and the latterto the social or natural realm.

This dichotomy between inclusive and exclusive, not only distinguishes between twodifferent worlds quantitatively, but assigns a qualitative degree upon each: the first is consideredat a lower level than the second. Exclusivity is considered a characteristic of superiority. Bydifferentiating between inferior and superior realms, the vertical stratification creates a hierarchyof existence and without going as far as the exactitude of the medieval Great Chain of Being, itdoes give humanity a general orientation for its value priorities.

Supplementing this vertical and horizontal frame of reference, there is a third parameterwhich distinguishes between the natural and artificial worlds. Human beings realize that they arecreatures of the first and creators of the second. Unlike other natural creations, man is also ahomo faber, who shapes and is shaped by nature. This capacity to produce artifacts has built anew class of artificial environment: i.e. the social technosphere, which supplements and even


9/22

dominates the natural part of society.These inner-outer, higher-lower, and natural-artificial dichotomies set the stage for our

model and put it in the proper perspective. Such perspective will serve to situate the discussion inthe main text and thus relate the systems upon which we shall focus attention. Thus, theecological framework must be kept in mind as a necessary background for understanding what isto follow.

TOPOLOGYThat we exist in a three-dimensional space is a common sense as well as a common place

assumption. Although some scientists, especially String Theorists, believe that reality ismultidimentional, we need not go into higher dimensions or Hilbert hyperspaces in the presentcontext. Three dimensions suffice to describe and explain most sociophysical phenomena, so wewill contend ourselves with these.

It is they that form the conceptual basis of distance, size and position. Accordingly, thingsare located in ordinary three dimensional space and theirposition can be pinpointed by altitude,latitude and longitude: with the well known Cartesian (x-y-z) coordinates providing their inertialreference frame. Within this frame, various points are located by measuring the distance which

separates them as a vector joining their respective positions. Finally, going beyond dimensionlesspoints, ordinary things occupy a certain amount of space proportional to theirsize, as measured inthe same three dimensions: length, width, height.

Topological taxonomy ranges things by size from the micro- to the macro-scopic. Allthings from the subnuclear (10 25 meters) can be fittedwithin the range: i.e. 1060 Planck lengths. As it happens human size is in the middle or mesoscopicregion (100 meters). Just above it, the social world ranges between 10 1 and 107 square meters, i.e.the area of the smallest community (family) on the one hand and the global society (world) on theother.

Our central position along the spatial scale of things accounts for our relative sense of sizeand distance. Human perception can distinguish between small and large as well as between near

and far. Finally, we can differentiate between rest and motion by fixing stationary objects in asingle location and following the trajectory of moving objects between successive points in space.

On the basis of this human sense of space, we shall locate our model in the proximaterange, where we perceive social systems. From this anthropocentric vantage point, we acquire agood perspective of our position in the overall scale of things. Moreover, we use space as anexplanatory variable for the operational range of different laws. Although there is a basicsimilarity in all things regardless of scale; where things are located, how big they are and whatdistance separates them, are all significant factors in describing or explaining them. Space willtherefore serve as one of our two most important frames of reference.

CHRONOLOGYTime has often been called the fourth dimension of space, and indeed it is inextricably

woven into it. As space is a container for things, time is a channel for events; as the formermeasures dimension, the latter measures duration. Together with the existential what, the twocoextensive frameworks determine the where and when of all phenomena.

As we did above for space, we shall now analyze time according to three parameters:direction (past-present-future); duration (short-medium-long); motion (slow-average-fast).Looking upon time from these three angles will describe their timing and pacing. In any case:tempus fugit: time never stands still.

Unlike space, time seems unidimensional and everflowing. For all practical purposes, its


10/22

motion can only be in a single direction. The arrow of time flies inexorably through threesuccessive periods: from the past, via the present, to the future. Accordingly, to the space's threedegrees of freedom (up-down; left-right; fore-back), time has none (only forward).

This apparent unidirectionality of time is neither absolute nor deterministic and maymanifest itself so on the human level only. In the microscopic realm of elementary particles timecould flow in both directions; whereas in the cosmic world of the universe, it hardly flows at all.This temporal relativity makes determinism a flexible concept and shows that events are notnecessarily predestined.

Although the past cannot be relived, nor history changed; the future consists of manypossibilities, so destiny can be shaped to some extent. As we shall see later on, humans as well asother living beings have some degree of volition which give them a freedom of choice within theconstraints imposed by the circumstances of time and space. Between the ineluctable past and theuncertain future, the everlasting present is a fork on the road of time, therefore it always offerssome options from which to select one's future.

Time, like space, began with the Big Bang over ten billion years ago. That momentousevent of universal genesis can be considered as the origin of time when t=0. Consequently, ourpast is about twenty billion years and it is at the end of that period where the present is located.

Only five billion years ago, the solar system was created and it is estimated that it will last anotherfive billion years, at which time the sun will become a supernova and eventually burn outcompletely. The rest of the universe, however, may go on for another 10 100 years before all matterhas disintegrated into radiation at maximum entropy. Accordingly, it seems that there is muchmore future than past, since at present the universe is still very young.

As distance measures space, so duration measures time. The life-time of things variesfrom the almost instantaneouschronon (10-25 seconds) or jiffy (the time it takes light to cross thediameter of a proton: 10-22 seconds), to the almost eternal galaxy (1025 seconds). Here again, humantime is found in the midrange between the second (100) it takes for human reaction to the tenthousand years (1010 seconds) of history. Thus both for space and time, human social activitiesoccupy the central focus of our conceptual framework.

As to the pace of time, we shall consider this parameter from both its physiological andpsychological aspects. The former looks upon motion either as an absolute or relativecombination of time and space, as we shall see in the section on velocity (cf. 112). The lattercompares the objective measurement and subjective sensitivity about the passage of time. Hereagain, it will become evident that temporal flow is perceived differently, depending on one's stateof mind and age of body (cf. 312).

In order to summarize and synthesize the three contextual parameters which werediscussed in this section, we have combined them in the drawing appearing in the next page.Diagram 011, shows the relationships between realm, space, time by situating man and societywith distance and duration, from the micro to the macro regions of reality. In this overall picture,it is easy to see the centrality of human existence in a cosmic perspective. We shall keep thisperspective throughout the following study and thus maintain the image of man in relation to therest of nature.


11/22

CONTENT

Following the basic framework we have just constructed, we can now introduce thevarious units which exist therein. The fundamental assumption here is that our contextual realityis filled with some existential content. This content can best be described as a variety of distinctentities, which are nevertheless interrelated and interacting.

As such, any number of entities taken together as a group may be said to form a system.The members of the system compose its substance, their relationships form its structure and theiractivities determine its operation. As a group of interconnected units, a system can be anythingone defines it to be, depending on where its border with the environment is drawn.

Once the object of inquiry has been identified and defined, a complete description of itrequires information about its three Q's (quiddity, quality, quantity). These three aspects meanthat one must know the system's essential ingridients, characteristic attributes, and substantialvalues. On that basis, anything may be identified by its material, shape, and weight.

Since Bacon, a distinction has been made between primary and secondary traits. Theformer are objective and quantitative, such as matter, motion, form; while the latter are subjectiveand qualitative, such as color, taste, smell. These distinctions have been reaffirmed by modern

science, so we shall accept them here as descriptive aspects of reality.For our purposes, we have devised the following identifying parameters: substance;

structure; and operation. Accordingly, we shall look into ontological, morphological andtropological characteristics of the systems which concern us. By doing so, we will clarify what weare dealing with and how this fits into the larger scheme of things. The following three sectionswill cover the necessary details of each of these elementary aspects.

ONTOLOGYThe discussion here can begin by distinguishing three existential domains: The first and

most inclusive is that of reality which may include all possible beings. The second is that ofactuality and includes only beings which have an existence independent of us. The third and most

exclusive is that ofsensuality which applies only to empirical beings, like ourselves.These distinctions are based on the a priori assumption of our own existence and then go

on to determine what else exists, what it is like and how it is related to us. To do so, they set thecriteria of evidence which could prove one way or another what constitutes something indistinction to nothing. The criteria will be set here in three parameters dealing with elements,attributes and relations. The first concerns the identity of an entity; the second describes its traitsand the third determines its affections.

The above three aspects are the necessary and sufficient parts of a complete description ofour components. It is the primary hypothesis here that everything existing and happening in realityinvolves these and only these elements in some way or another. This ontological model willtherefore be built on their parameters.

Human capacity to experience and define reality has been primarily justified by commonsense and eventually confirmed by natural science. Since present knowledge rests on thefoundation of physics, it will be used to support our contentions here. Accordingly, we admit thepostulate that reality may ultimately be reducible to certain elementary particles. It is they whicheventually make up everything, from the most banal material things to the most exalted etherealideas.

These particles, named fermions, are of two kinds: leptons and quarks. The former, ofwhich electrons are the most prevalent example, are very antisocial in that they exist alone; whilethe latter are quite sociable and so are always found in groups. Quarks combine to form protons


12/22

and neutrons, which make up the atomic nucleus. As the fundamental units of matter, variouscombinations of atoms, composed of nuclii and revolving electrons, build up all materialstructures, from molecules and cells, to planets and stars. In between, there is the realm of humansociety with its own kind of individual and collective entities.

The traditional ontological dichotomy between matter and mind may be explained, perhapsin an oversimplified way, by the fundamental difference between quarks and leptons. Ideas arebasically systems of electrons, rooted in the quarks of a brain. From the simplest symbol to themost complex theory, mental entities arise from the various activities of material elements; at thesame time as they in turn affect their material hosts. Mind and matter are thus interrelated invarious degrees, as exemplified in human beings.

Troughout history, great thinkers have made various analogies between the elements ofnatural and social systems. From Plato's Politea being anthropos writ large to Bronowski's manbeing a social atom, these metaphors have persisted in all periods and regions of humancontemplation. We must therefore accept such attempts as a valid comparisons and so willelaborate on them further in this work.

Elementary particles exhibit three basic traits: mass, charge and spin. The first gives beingits substance; while the second gives it essence. Spin corresponds to a self-referential activity

which will be explained later on. At the material end of the existential spectrum, mass reignssupreme but tapers off as we move towards the mental end. Charge, on the other hand, is to befound, in various quantities (strong or weak) and qualities (positive or negative), throughoutexistence. These traits give all beings certain proclivities which demonstrate their particularcharacter and distinguishes them from each other.

All entities, whether fermions or humans, need some mediating agency to interconnectthem into systems. This indispensable role of interrelating and interacting is ultimately played bysome kind of field particles, named bosons. Unlike fermions which are characterized by asignificant mass and charge, bosons do not partake of these two attributes. Rather, they only havespins and provide connections as they are exchanged among fermions.

Such exchanges are basically of three kinds: weak or strong nuclear, electromagnetic and

gravitational. The first exist by sharing gluons and thus hold together the atomic nucleus. Thesecond take place by exchanging photons and thus explain most of our ordinary phenomena. Thethird operate by the displacement of gravitons and thus provide the overall attraction between allthings in the universe.

Similar phenomena occur up the ontological ladder to describe social, as well as atomicand gallactic bonding. Societies, like all systems, are held together by certain ties of varyingstrength and extent. From the very strong and tight bonds of the organic family to the weak andloose threads of cultures, these connecting links form all kinds of structures and institutions:organic and social alike; as we shall see later on.

MORPHOLOGY.As particles combine, they form structures. This process of morphogenesis means that

systems take shape and form. Beyond the elementary particles, how systems are structuredbecomes an important aspect of their identity. Thus, the number and kind of connections in asystem determine its crux and form.

Structural forms are so diverse that it is difficult to classify them. But, for purposes of thismodel, we shall use three criteria for such classification. These will pertain to the quantity of theircomponents; the quality of their form; and the anatomy of their structure. Let us look at each onein turn.

As to quantity of components, systems are distinguished by the number of units which


13/22

belong to them. Thus, beyond isolated particles, there are small systems, made up of very fewmembers, as well as large systems of numerous elements. At the minimal end, the smallest systemrequires at least two parties: such as the two quarks which form a proton. At the maximal end, ofcourse, is the all-inclusive universe. In between, are to be found intermediate systems, includingorganic and social ones.

The simplest way of defining systems is by the kinds of their units. In this way, an atomicsystem may be distinguished as a group of elementary particles and a solar system as a group ofheavenly bodies. Similarly, a material system is a group of massive objects, whereas an idealsystem is a set of mental concepts. Determining the components, thus, defines the type of systemone wants to focus on.

What serves as the component of one system, however, may itself also be a system. So,human beings who are the units of social systems are themselves organic systems made up of agreat number of living cells. Furthermore, each of these is a molecular system and each moleculeis an atomic system. This hierarchy of units within systems and systems within units could extenditself indefinitely up and down the scale from the infinitesimally small units to the infinitely largesystems.

Present knowledge limits this range between the elementary particles as the smallest units

and the universe as the largest system. In between are to be found several distinct levels ofdifferent qualitative and quantitative characteristics. Apart from size, these levels may be alsodistinguished by the complexity of their units. On these criteria, we can discern three types ofmaterial systems.

Starting from the bottom, we have nuclear or atomic systems composed of elementaryparticles as their units. These are the simplest kind of systems of which there are about onehundred different kinds forming all the elements (e.g. hydrogen or iron) of the universe. Largeagglomerations of these make up inert materials (e.g. metals or stones) and mechanical parts (e.g.cogs or rods).

At the next level are molecular systems, made up of atomic systems as their units.Molecules make up the more complex substances (e.g. earth, water, air) which are usually

compounds (e.g. ceramics or plastics) of various elements.At the top are the cellular systems, whose units are molecular systems. At that level the

accumulated complexity of the units (e.g. proteins or enzymes) makes the systems (e.g. fibers ormuscles) qualitatively different than the previous ones because they possess the attribute of life.

Since these levels are hierarchical, their characteristics are cumulative, so that organicsystems contain both molecular and atomic ones, whereas molecular systems only contain atomic.For now, these three fundamental types were selected as the building blocks of all reality. This isevidenced by the most advanced of the scientific disciplines which study these three levels: i.e.physics; chemistry; biology. On this basis, the present interdisciplinary study will look into eachone as it supports higher and more complex systems: i.e. society.

The degree of connectivity among the elements of a system determines the second formalparameter considered here. This means that if the connections are strong, they result in rigidstructures; whereas if they are weak, they are rather fuzzy. In this range between rigidity andflexibility there is to be found the difference between solids, liquids and gases: from the mostcrystalline to the most cloudy. The degree of anatomical order thus produces the exactitude ofform and differentiates systems according to their structural state.

Finally, the sequence in which elements are arranged is as important as their number andstrength. The quality of this arrangement determines both their structures and actions and soserves as a major distinguishing characteristic. In this respect, forms may be classified from theminimal one of a single point, through a string of points forming unidimensional straight or curved


14/22

lines and bidimensional planes, to the most complicated tridimensional forms combining manydifferent shapes and sizes.

The importance of form at its primary level is evident from the famous particle-waveduality in elementary physics. Fundamental entities seem to have a double personality becausethey sometimes behave as particles and other times as waves, depending on how they areapproached and manipulated. This duality has produced many paradoxes in physics which havenot yet found a complete explanation (cf. 3133); so we must accept them here as inherent in thenature of things.

Trying to resolve these and other contradictions in physics, there has arisen recently atheory which postulates unidimensional vibrating strings as the ultimate basis of both particles andwaves. The various modes of oscillation or string harmonics are said to correspond to differentparticles and field waves, so that the behavior of these entities can account for everything.Fortunately, we do not have to choose among these opposing fundamentalist positions. Rather, itis possible to accept all three as different aspects of the same reality and proceed to situate themwithin an overall space-time framework.

TROPOLOGY.

In addition to form and substance, particles and systems have a behavior. All particles actin a certain way and some action takes place within all systems, as well as between them and theenvironment. An understanding of the operation of a system, therefore, requires knowledge ofthese events, which we shall also undertake to include in this model.

We can begin by distinguishing three parameters which characterize systemic activity:flows, processes and functions. Different types of systems have several combinations of theseactivities. Complex systems, like societies or organisms, have all three types. Simple, isolatedsystems, like an asteroid at the edge of the universe, has very little of any of them. Let us thendescribe each one below.

By flow we mean the dynamic elements moving along the connecting channels of asystem. As mentioned above, bosons provide the most elementary flows of any system; but at a

level closer to the middle range of reality, we can distinguish three kinds of flows: materialistic,energetic, and symbolic. At the material end of the spectrum, various forms of matter can betransported between points in space; such as the the flow of blood in the arteries of organicsystems or the movement of goods and people in social systems. Similarly, energy, as the othermanifestation of matter, flows through dynamic system channels as electricity or heat. Finally, atthe mental end of the spectrum, information can be communicated via either material or energeticvehicles.

These flows may be considered as processes when they undertake or undergo sometransformation along the way. In this case, the flows entering a given system are its inputs andthose leaving are its outputs. In between these two are the transforming throughputs of thesystemic process. Because of their serial connectivity, the input-output flow is identified with thecause-effect process. Since outputs depend on inputs, there is some causal relationship betweenthe two which indicates the flow of influence from one point to another.

In open systems, input-output flows run between the system and its environment. Theseflows to and from the environment may transport materials, carry energy or communicateinformation, using different transmitting and receiving channels. Systems act as converters whichtransform inputs into outputs. These three functions: reception (stimulus); conversion(transformation); expedition (response); thus characterize the dynamics of complex systems whichwe will be discussing in this study.

A function signifies the correlation between at least two variables: x and y; so that for


15/22

every value of x there is a corresponding value of y. The basic function of a system requires thatthe output y is dependent on the input x: i.e. y=(x). Where y is the dependent variable, x is theindependent variable and (operator) is some function. If the relationship is linear, the functiontakes the form of: y=Ax+B; where A and B are parametric constants. Complex systems, ofcourse, have much more complicated functions with the addition of intervening variables. Theprinciple, however, is the same in all cases: i.e. a complete knowledge of how a system functionsmust account for all its flows.

In considering the functions of a system, one also gets involved with questions of role andpurpose. These try to find the instrumentality of systems by determining their priority in the chainof causality. In this respect, we can distinguish between original and final stages in the systemicfunction. Some systems serve the purposes of others and thus are means to an end. Other systemsintervene between immediate and ultimate chains of causation; therefore they are both means forsome and ends for others.

In order to summarize and illustrate the interrelations among elements, structures andprocesses, we have drawn Diagram 012, in the following page. The diagram shows the variousintersecting ranges of system contents as they were discussed in this section. The main point to bemade from all this is that the continuum between simplicity and complexity is the combined result

of all the parameters mentioned above. The difference between simple and complex systems is ofcourse one of degree, which carried to extremes becomes one of kind.

As one of the relatively complex systems, human beings can look both up and down thisexistential ladder and compare their position in an overall perspective. In doing so they engage inmental and physical activities according to certain rules. Identifying these rules and describingtheir operation will be the subject of the next section which follows presently.


16/22

CODEX

Having outlined the content and context of this study, we shall now present its operatingprocedures or working programs. These are the means and methods according to which particlesand systems function. Codes are thus indispensable not only for practical but for theoreticalreasons; because they guide the actions of a system as well as explain its dynamics.

Unless one accepts Feyerabend's methodological anarchism which denies the possibility oftruth and the objectivity of knowledge, or Wheeler's Law which says there is no law except thelaw that there is no law; it is necessary to assume that reality is not entirely chaotic, so we candiscover some laws according to which we expect it to function. The task of science, of course, isto expose, explore, and explain such laws.

The term law is used here to mean a statement of a regularity or a description of atendency. Laws are expressions of invariances maintained in spite of transactions undertaken.Thus, they may be likened to plans or programs which guide particular actions under certainconditions, based on the Cosmological Principle that nature behaves uniformly and consistently inspace-time.

This principle was not always accepted as such. The ancient philosophers clearly

distinguished between terrestial and celestial laws. The former were temporal and applied to theessential elements on this Earth, while the latter were eternal and governed the quintessentialether of the Firmament. Although we do not make such dichotomy now, we do classify lawsaccording their their range and scale of applicability.

Laws are of varying intensity and extensity: from the strong to the weak and from thegeneral to the specific, or from the ante to the meta. Natural laws seem to be the most generalbecause they have the widest scope and admit few exceptions; whereas social laws are morespecific to human interactions and are full of conditional limitations. This distinction, however, isone of degree and level, so it does not contradict the fundamental qualities perceived in both. Itshould be noted in this respect that like social legislation, certain natural laws, i.e.superconductivity, are not merely discovered but created by human intervention.

According to the Principle of Covariance, there is a general correlation between naturaland social laws. Contemporary science accepts natural laws to be much more like social laws: i.e.encouraging or guiding behavior, rather than commanding absolute obedience. In that sense, alllaws predispose things to act in a certain way, they do not predetermine them to do so. Moreover,like common or customary rather than civil or positive, natural laws have developed over eons oftime and patterns of habit, thus enjoying the advantages of primogeniture.

The classical difference between the lex andjus naturale not only distinguishes betweennatural and social orders as well as phenomenal and noumenal realms but connect ontologicalwith deontological concerns. The debate whether imperative conclusion can follow indicativepremises has a long history. In modern times Humean positivism forbids such leap of logic andaccepts the strict Weberian distinction between what is (Seiende) and what will be (Werdende)from what should be (Seinsollende).

Nevertheless, scientific moralism persists in making such connection between facts andvalues, culminating with Kant's categorical imperative. Our hypothesis here is that there may befound an immanent and uniform as well as probable and desirable cosmic order to which adhereboth the existential and preferential aspects of humanity (cf. 333).

In this study, we shall re-enter the search for such real-ideal complementarity by specifyinghow the basic rules of the game operate in the universe at large and how they apply in the humandomain as special case. These rules or codes combine to form the etiology of sociophysics andinclude the scientific laws of correlation and causality, as well as grammatical cannons, aesthetic


17/22


18/22

The following sections will deal with each one in turn.

EPISTEMOLOGYThe theory of knowledge adopted here centers around the modern empirical paradigm

which combines rationality and sensitivity as the dual road to human understanding. On the basisof sense inputs and thought flows, one can form a coherent overall picture of reality. Humanknowledge (justified true belief) consists of a system of conjunctions between perceptions(experiences) and conceptions (explanations). We are convinced of knowing something, if we canfit it in the general scheme of things forming ourweltanschauung. Understanding, thus, involvesthe successful integration of particular diverse phenomena into a general ideological paradigm bythe combination of scientific induction and logical deduction.

The correct juxtaposition between facts and ideas permits us to verify experiences and testthe facticity of our perceptions. The complicated process of doing so may be simplified by a threephase procedure: diagnosis; anagnosis; prognosis (DAP). The successful application of DAPshould provide adequate knowledge about anything. It shall thus be incorporated into the modelin its simplest form.

The process begins by a diagnosis of the object or situation under study. This means the

identification, definition and description of an existing condition by accurate perception andclassification of signs and facts, using proper criteria of evidence and proof. Diagnosisdifferentiates between true and false symptoms in order to arrive at the correct correlationbetween nooumena and phenomena. Thus, the first critical step is that of verification whichdistinguishes factive from fictive images. If truth measures the correspondence between mentaland material phenomena, then we want to make sure that our internal images are truerepresentations of external objects. Diagnosis does this by constantly comparing and correlatingthe inner world of concepts and outer word of percepts.

Once a correct diagnosis of the present is made, the next step is to find the causal chainthat led to it. This requires an anagnosis of the history of the subject to discern the sequence ofevents which produced the actual situation. The proper anagnosis of the past will lead to the

etiology of the present and thus explain it causally. Anagnosis, therefore, assumes that there issome cause-effect relationship between antecedents and consequents; so that temporal orderrather than chaos determines the sequence of events. Explanation, as we shall see, does not onlyinvolve deterministic chains of causality, but also random and intentional elements, which must betaken into account for complex system behavior.

If that is done, knowledge of the past and present should inevitably lead to determinationof the future. Thereby, on the basis of diagnosis and anagnosis, one should be able to present notonly a plausible description and explanation of a problem, but also a prediction of its evolution.This last step ofprognosis, projects into the future the trends established in the past, as they aretransformed by the present. In this way, it calculates the probable within the the limits of thepossible, given the proper theory which connects these aspects of reality.

Together, these three steps follow the arrow of time, and allow a study the temporaldevelopment of significant events. Realistic exposition, historical explanation and conditionalextrapolation have always been an inherent part of mental activity everywhere. We shall,therefore, explicitly perform this diachronic process in order to understand the dynamics of socialsystems, especially as they apply to the macrohistorical progress operating on the global worldscale.

Ideally, this method should produce complete knowledge on any subject. Yet, for variouspractical and theoretical reasons, it is now admitted that such knowledge is impossible. Both theinadequacy of facts and the incompleteness of laws, as well as the inherent uncertainty and


19/22

indeterminacy of reality preclude the exact knowledge of anything. As we shall see later on, wehave to accept this epistemological limitation and resign ourselves to a life of partial knowledgeonly.

METHODOLOGYEven if it can never be complete, knowledge can be acquired by some methods rather than

by others. Methodology is such a search for a systematic and optimal way of reaching a givenobjective. As a means to an end, a method is the bridge crossing from ignorance to knowledge.Finding the best vehicle to move us in this direction, therefore, becomes the purpose of the searchhere.

Since the way to knowledge has been found to relate empirical phenomena with mentalnooumena, we will follow this road back and forth between its two end points. For this journey,we will use logic as the main vehicle of manipulating symbols and communicating ideas. Thismethod provides three rational criteria: syllogism; analogism; dialogism (SAD), which determinethe validity of both the process and its results.

First and foremost is the syllogistic method which is identified with classical Aristotelianlogic. Although this method proceeds by deduction from the general to the specific; the opposite

sense, from specific to general, can easily be derived by induction. The former applies unifiedtheories to explain diverse experiences; whereas the latter builds broad theories from a lot ofstatistical data. Together, deductive and inductive logic provide the rules for both rationalizingand generalizing in a valid manner.

As a rational method, science combines the two processes, by trying to discover empiricalevents as well as construct conceptual laws. These laws supply the necessary broad prerequisiteswith which the sufficient specific conditions combine to formulate meaningful explanations. Thus,explaining unique empirical facts in terms of universal ideals or formal abstractions is accepted asvalid by positivist thinking.

The ultimate explanatory statement of a physical entity, known as a Lagrangian, is amathematical equation which provides the operative code of the system under consideration and

thus explains its behavior. Most natural system dynamics can be described by second orderdifferentials. But, these equations work best in conditions of smooth and continuous change; theyare not so well adapted to abrupt discontinuities as those experienced in complex systems.

For that reason, the ideal abstractions of symbolic logic and mathematics, cannot alwaysfit the behavior of very complex systems, such as human or social ones. Relativistic thinkingtherefore emphasizes the specific and contingent aspects of behavior in order to explain incidentalor circumstantial events. In these cases, analogic thinking is more appropriate for purposes ofconsistency. According to this comparative method, exigesis is best achieved by juxtaposing thesimilarities and differences among the various aspects of reality.

To this end, the analogical method serves a purpose by comparing the known to theunknown and the social to the natural. In addition to syllogy, this study will also utilize analogy asa valid criterion for extending knowledge from one field to another. Comparing the simpler andwell-known laws of nature with the complex phenomena of society, we thereby expect to widenour understanding of both the natural and the social realms.

Finely, through the third dialogic method, the proper meaning can be established fordifferent conditions. Hermeneutics believes that understanding is only possible by subjectiveinterpretation of recorded evidence. Such textual analysis tries to explain human actions bygrasping the intentions and rationales that people give in justify them and thereby clarify theambiguities of words and deeds.

This position assumes the complete dichotomy between nature and society, by assuming


20/22

that human beings control their actions, whereas natural forces do not. Although, the differencesbetween men and atoms are well noted here, such diametrical opposition between the human andnatural worlds must be rejected. As we intend to show in this study, the differences are not asgreat as all that. On the contrary, our evolving knowledge is reconciling their differences and thuscloses the gap between them.

In doing so, it is preferable to admit a single fundamental scientific method which is thensubdivided into: theoretical (regulatory-explanatory); empirical (phenomenal-historical); andpractical (pragmatic-mechanic) aspects. This Mengerian typology recognizes the continuumbetween a general-abstract and individual-concrete polarity and is thus a more realistic andhumanistic point of view: corresponding, if not coinsiding with the SAD aspects of ourmethodology.

AXIOLOGY.In order to complete the codex of this study, we now present its axiology. This area deals

with the axioms and values which underlie choice; so it is indispensable in any normative worksuch as this one. Although, it is often said that pure science is value-free, human concerns are not.Therefore, we admit certain value preferences and go on to justify them on the basis of three

critical standards: diacrisis; anacrisis; syncrisis (DAS).The first standard establishes the relevance among things or ideas. By the process of

diacrisis, a judgement can be made between the trivial and the important. The extent or degree inwhich something affects something else is obviously the basis of relevance and provides the maincriterion of importance. On this basis, importance is a relative concept which depends on thestrength of influence in particular relationships and not an absolute standard of reality.

The second criterion establishes responsible behavior by distinguishing between necessaryand voluntary action. Since one can only be responsible for intentional acts, there must be a cleardifference between determinism and voluntarism. Anacrisis provides the judgement for suchdistinction by defining the area of free will and human control from the realm of superior forceand necessity.

The third and last standard of evaluation concerns the preferences exhibited by all systems.According to these preferences, certain things are desirable and others avoidable. On the basis ofcertain natural proclivities regarding love and hate, human beings develop moral codes of goodand evil. As a code of social behavior, morality is a process of syncrisis process which guideshuman conduct by entering a consideration of others in any intentional action that concerns them.In this way, ethics establishes the proper relations between the self and its environment.

Diagram 013, outlines the DAP, SAD and DAS canons in a three dimensional perspective.Furthermore, these codex dimensions have been made to coincide with those of the content andcontext. This method of presentation shows the correspondence among all three aspects in acommon conceptual framework. These dimensions will form the skeleton which supports thebody of our study. Therefore, their explicit mention here in the introduction serves to prepare thereader for the implications of what follows in the main text.

--------------------------------------With this exposition of the content, context and codex of the study, we are now in a

position to complete the conceptual framework of SUM. In order to do so, we shall utilize thethree parameters above to construct a three dimensional universe of discourse. The discussion ofthe book will follow along the guidelines described here.

To begin with, the first parameter, corresponding to the space-time context, will beadapted to frame what is considered as the three typical conditions of reality: statics; dynamicsand dialectics. The first reflects the constant or conservative aspects of reality; the second reflects


21/22

the opposite tendencies for variety and change; whereas the third combines both to reflect thefluctuations and contradictions of nature. Every one of these conditions is governed by equivalentconservation, alteration, fluctuation (DAF) laws, which will be hereby discussed and compared.Consequently, this book is divided into three parts, each of which deals with one of thesecanonical aspects of reality.

The second parameter corresponds to the existential content of reality: i.e. matter; energy;life (MEL). From it will be selected only the subjects covered by the natural sciences, because it isthey that provide our fundamental concepts. In effect, this will involve physics, chemistry andbiology, as the most representative disciplines of the natural sciences. These will be dealt with inthe three chapters of each part of the book. In this way, the chapters cross-cut the parts to formthe nine cell matrix shown at the end of the Introduction.

Finally, the third parameter concerns the operating method used in this work. It juxtaposesthe natural and social sciences as the two premises of a syllogism and then draws the appropriategeneral conclusion from them. These steps begin with natural laws as the major premise, continuewith the social phenomena as the minor premise, and end with a general conclusion. Each chapterwill therefore start with a section on natural principles, followed by another section on socialphenomena and finish by a section combining these two in a final synopsis.

In this way, we shall cover the environmental, systemic and universal (ESU) aspects of oursubject.and should arrive at the extension of physical laws into general principles which apply tosociety as well as to nature. The ESU process then transforms natural science inputs into unifiedsystem outputs, via the intervention of social science. Consequently, the basic laws of nature willdemonstrate their adaptability and convertibility to society; at the same time as social and naturalphenomena are contained within the same all-inclusive codes.

The reason for the precedence of natural over social considerations is that the former hassimpler and more well-known regularities than the latter. As a result, there is an obvious tendencyto proceed from the simple and familiar to the complex and unknown, thus advancing step-by-stepthe accumulation of knowledge and understanding. This logical-positivist bias, however, does notmean that there is no feedback from the social to the natural domain; since as already noted,

culture affects science as nature affects society.Either way, our fundamental axiom is that reality always presents us with at least three

faces. Two of these are the classical opposites ofyin andyangwhich are joined by a third whichis at the same time an affirmation and a denial of both. These three primordial conditions are atthe base of TIP which pervades this work and frames its concepts.

Following this dictum of conceptual elegance, we have combined the above parameters inthe three dimensional SUM matrix, shown in Diagram 002. This 3x3x3 or 27 cell structure, muchlike a Rubik cube, represents the overall conceptual framework of this study and contains all itsaspects. The main text of the work which follows will fill-in each of the cells in three dimensions:parts; chapters; sections.

For a more detailed look at our scheme, we take one of the faces of this cube and expandit to the third degree. Diagram 003 shows the master matrix which summarizes the entire study.The vertical columns correspond to the three parts of this work; while the horizontal rows containthe three chapters of each part. Finally, within every box are to be seen the three parts of eachchapter, thus completing the three dimensions of the cube.

There are no illusions as to the difficulty of attaining such comprehensive goal in one fellswoop. Nevertheless, a beginning has to be made and someone has to work up the temerity to doit. So, as the gauntlet has been thrown, the challenge has been accepted here to launch in earnestthis process of transcientific-nomothetic convergence. If it is successful, this work shouldcontribute to the development of GUT later on.


22/22

Ignorance is the square root of all evil.

sociophysics::cosmos & chaos in nature & culture. nova science publishers. ny. 2004

Documents