Kuhn’s “paradigms” and the EDWs hyper-paradigm1

(February 2023)

Gabriel Vacariu
(Philosophy, Bucharest University)

This paper is about Kuhn’s “paradigms”/“revolutions” and my EDWs perspective. Investigating some
details of Kuhn’s paradigms/revolutions, I indicate that my EDWs perspective is the greatest change in the
history of human thinking (sciences and philosophy) and this is the reason I call it “hyper-paradigm”. My
main argument is that thousands of “professors” from different domains/countries have published
UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas after I published my article at Synthese (2005, USA), one of
the best journal of philosophy of science in the entire world.

Obviously, the EDWs perspective has been the greatest change in the history of human
thinking: this change has influenced all mainly particular sciences like physics, cognitive
neuroscience and biology, and the entire philosophy (ontology/metaphysics,
epistemology, philosophy of science, etc.). There have been small changes through
“development-by-accumulation” (Kuhn 1970, p. 2), there have been great changes
through “revolutions”, that is, the change of a large paradigm of thinking. But what does
it mean small or great change of paradigm? What is the difference between small and
great changes? This topic I want to talk about in this section.
We could assume that all “changes” have been “revolutions”, but obviously, this
idea would be totally wrong. In the history of human thinking, there are small and great
changes. I consider we have to differentiate between small or great changes/revolutions.
For me, it means, “revolution” would require a change of paradigm of thinking. Again,
we can believe there are different kinds of revolutions, but I consider only the change of a
paradigm of thinking is a revolution. What, then, does it mean a change of a paradigm of
thinking? “Copernicus’s revolution” has been considered as a paradigmatic case of
“revolution”, indeed. From my viewpoint, Copernicus’ change was indeed a revolution,
but we have to pay attention that he changed the paradigm of thinking for explaining
certain macro-phenomena belonging to the same EW, the macro-EW. Therefore,
Copernicus did not even deal with phenomena belonging to at least two EDWs, like
Descartes’ dualism (mind-brain dulaity) or Bohr’s complementarism (wave-particle
duality). Could we think the “identity theory” was a revolution?
It was agreat change in human thinking (involving philosophy and even people
working in neuroscience and psychology, and later in cognitive science). However, I
believ, we cannot consider the identity theory as being a “revolution”. As I gave indicated
from 2002 until today, it was even a wrong movement, while Copernicus’ movement was
not wrong, he was quite right. So, what does it mean a “paradigm of thinking”? We can
furnish many meanings for this expression; there are different kinds of paradigms of
thinking, greater or smaller. There is a paradigm for one subdomain or a domain, there
are larger pradigms, but nobody until me had identified the laterger paradigm of thinking,
1
I mention here that in this chapter, I will investigate certain only some ideas from Kuhn’s work (1970)
who seem to be important for me. There are many more ideas that I should investigate, but I am not
interested in such work.

1
the unicorn world (universe/world). I do not want to deal here with this idea. We return to
Kuhn:

Normal science, the activity in which most scientists invevitably spend all their time, is predicted on the
assumption that the scientific community knows how the world is. Most clearly than most other episodes in
the history of at least the physical sciences, these display what all scientific revolutions are about. Each of
them necessitated the community’s rejection of one time-honored scientific theory in favour of another
incompatible with it… And each transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately
need to describe as a transformation of the world within which scientific work was done. Such changes,
together with controversies that almost always accompany them, are defining characteristics of scientific
revolutions. (Kuhn, p. 5)2

We have to make a clear distinction between “scientific revolutions” and “revolutions of

paradigm of thinking”: in the first case, there has to be a “change” (smaller or greater)
within a particular science or (sub)domain. We can consider, for instance, the identity
theory a “philosophical revolution” within the “philosophy of mind”. Since ‘50s years
(with Place and Smart’s articles) of the last century until I published my first articles, the
great majority of philosophers and scientists had accepted the identity theory. The
problem was that many researchers knew that something was quite unclear (or even
fuzzy) with this approach, but they did not know exactly what had been wrong with this
approach. The majority of peoplel had accepted the identity theory just because it was the
best approach until I published my work in 2005 at Synthese (USA, one of the best
journal of philosophy of science in that period). We have to recall that, in 1992, Searle
came with a new alternative on the market (the mind is produced by the brain, both being
something physically) but his approach was immediately rejected, almost nobody
accepted his view. So, we cannot consider Searle’s view a change of paradigm. This is an
example of not being a change of paradigm in a particular domain, philosophy of
mind/cognitive science.
Kuhn writes about one “anomaly” which appears within a paradigm of thinking or
scientific approach, and later, more and more anomalies are discovered, and these
anomalies inevitable produce the crisis. I repeat: many people had known something is
not good with the identity theory, but because there were no other viable alternatives,
many people had been working within this framework, the identity theory. So, when I
discovered the EDWs (in the winter of 2001-2002), the identity theory was the “paradigm
of thinking” which had dominated the researchers working on the mind-brain topic and
its related topics. I believe there are no stadard routes for creating a new paradigm of
thinking. Ovbiously, there are some necessary conditions: the author has to work on an
important problem and its related problems, and she has to know the main alternatives to
that problem. Also, at leat from my viewpoint, it would be much better if the author
knows other important problems from different but essential domains. I knew the mind-
brain problem and its related topics, I knew all alternatives for this problem, but also I
knew (not as goog as regarding the mind-brain problem) the main problems of quantum
mechanics, for instance.
Regarding my approach, the EDWs perspective, I can mention that nobody
rejected it! (Maybe some totally ignorant people, but I do not talk about them…) Kuhn
2
“… ‘normal science’ means research firmly based upon one or most past scientific achievements,
achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledge for a time as supplying the
foundation for its further practice.” (p. 10)

2
clearly indicates that a “new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or
never just an increment to what is already known”. (p. 7) Amazing, since 2005 until now,
I have not read something against my EDWs perspective (or against those thousands of
people who have plagiarized my ideas!). In the first year after 2005, i.e, 2006, tens of
people had already plagiarized my ideas. It means that my new paradigm of thinking, the
EDWs perspective had been immediately accepted by many people and nobody has
rejected until now… I can call my EDws perspective a kind of “hyper-paradigm”, i.e., a
paradigm beyond all the previous paradigms and approaches.
Let me see exactly the meaning of “paradigm” for Kuhn in the second edition of
his book (1970):

A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely a scientific community
consists of men who share a paradigm. (p. 176)

A scientific community consists, on this view, of the practitioners of a scientific speciality… they have
undergone similar educations and professional initiations; in the process, they have absorbed the same
technical literature and drawn many of the same lessons form it. Usually the boundaries of that standard
literature mark the limits of a scientific subject matter, and each community ordinarly has a subject of its
own. There are schools in the sciences, communities, that is, which approach the same subject form
incompatible viewpoints. (p. 177)

The paradigm of the “universe/world” had been accepted by everybody until I discovered
the existence of EDWs. There had been no scientist or philosopher who had rejected this
notion.3 Obviously, for the mind-brain problem and for entanglement/nonlocality had
been different “incompatible viewpoints” (from my viewpoint, it is about certain
“subparadigms” mostly, but not “paradigms” - see below), but all these approaches had
been constructed within the unicorn world.

The members of all scientific communities, including the schools of the “pre-paradigmatic” period, share
the same shorts of elements which I have collectively labelled ‘a paradigm’. What changes with the
transition to maturity is not the presence of a paradigm but rather its nature. (p. 179)

Here, we have a better pre-definition of “paradigm”. The nature of the unicorn world
paradigm, the “universe/world”, had been the strongest until I discovered it was quite
wrong. Until me, nobody had even questioned about this paradigm of thinking, the
unicorn world; everybody had been worked within this paradigm consciously or even
sub-consciously without even wandering or asking about the arguments which would
support it.
Kuhn indicates the heros of scientific revolutions, among them being Copernicus,
Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein. (p. 6) Obviously, there are others scientists in this list;
but if we refer to the history of human thinking (not only to some “scientific
revolutions”), maybe we need to introduce some philosophers in this list or even artists,
don’t we? It would be about the human thinking, in general. It is, of course, much more
difficult to identify “revolutions” regarding the human thinking in general, but I start
writing this chapter having the idea that the discovery of the EDWs represents the
greatest challenge in the history of human thinking; therefore, the EDWs perspective is

3
As I wrote many times in this work and in my previous works, Spinoza’s dual aspect theory and Everett’s
many worlds were constructed within the same wrong paradigm/framework, the unicorn world.

3
not a scientific or philosophical revolution, but the greatest revolution in human thinking
and this is the reason I call it, the “hyper-paradigm”.4
How do we differentiate between a “scientific revolution” and a “revolution in
human thinking”? First of all, the Coppernican revolution was, indeed, a scientific
revolution that it was not a change of “paradigm of thinking” since Copernicus did not
change an EW with EDWs: the entities and their relationships (the Earth and the planets
of our solar system) were belonging all to the same EW, the macro-EW. I believe
Descartes’ mind-brain problem was a much serious one since it were dealing with at least
two EDWs two centuries later. Copernicus’ new paradigm (scientific one, anyway)
indicated only that the Sun is in the center of our solar sytem and not the Earth, but the
entire solar system was placed within the same “universe/world”. Discovering the EDWs,
I indicated the “universe/world” does not exist. It was, indeed, the greatest challenge in
the history of human thinking sinceexactly because I replaced the “universe/world” with
the EDWs and, in this way, I have solved the greatest problems of different particular
sciences and philosophy.
Kuhn mentions some “paradigms” (related to normal science) like “‘Ptolemaic
astronomy’ (or ‘Copernican’), ‘Aristotelian dynamics’ (or Newtonina’), corpuscular
optics (or ‘wave optics’), and so on”. (p. 10) Except “Aristotelian dynamics”, all other
paradigms are “scientific paradigms” referring to certain phenomena from one another
science (physics, in general). The EDWs has been a new paradigm of human thinking
available for all main particular sciences (like physics, cognitive neuroscience and
biology), but also for philosophy. So, my perspective is not just a new “scientific
paradigm” or “philosophical paradigm”, but a hyper-paradigm for the human thinking in
general. I do not know such a change in the history of human thinking (including all great
changes in particular sciences and philosophy) which has represented such great
challenge of paradigm. In principle, the changes of paradigms have been in a particular
science or even in philosophy, but not in all sciences and philosophy! I emphasize again,
my theory does not indicate the “Truth”; it indicates certain real truths (which refer to
phenomena belonging to EDWs), but also indicates that all approaches, theories and
paradigms of special sciences and philosophy have been wrong. My EDWs perspective is
indeed a new hyper-paradigm of thinking for all scientists and philosophers 5, but it is not
an “absolute true perspective”. It has indicated that the greatest paradigm of thinking until
now (the universe/world) has been wrong, but also certain truths (referring to ED
phenomana belonging to EDWs). Quite interestingly, Kuhn indicates the problems for
scientists working in “normal science”:

whether historically or in the contemporary laboratory, that enterprise seems an attempt to force nature into
the preformed and relative inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal sciences
is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those who will not fit the box are often not seen at all. (p.
24)

4
Obviously, this is the reason so many academic “professors” have plagiarized my ideas.
5
It was not suprinsingly for me, many physicists who have plagiarized my ideas, dealt in their works on
certain problems of physics, but for the first time, they furnished a new alternative to the mind-brain
problem even if they have never published something on this topic. Who would be so stupid to believe
them?

4
Kuhn is quite right referring to the “normal scientists” (scientists who do not even try to
discover or the explain something in their science, i.e., 99% of them… they work under
“normal or paradigm-based research”, p. 25). Nevertheless, there are some “great
scientists” who try to explain certain phenomena under a new approach/perspective or
even paradigm. For instance, there have been more than ten “interpretations” of
phenomena furnished by empirical data of quantum mechanics (inded, “ten” is very small
compared to the number of physicists) of last century. There have been very few “shifting
paradigms” for the mind-brain problem during centuries even if many
researchers/philosophers like Spinoza-Velmans (against Descartes’ dualism) or Searle
(against the identity theory), but their approaches had not been accepted: Descartes died
without being able to solve the interactions between the mind and the brain, while
Searle’s approach had been immediately rejected by many scientists philosophers).
Kuhn writes about three kinds of facts that “determine” a paradigm.
(1) nature of things
(2) predictions of theory
(3) the empirical work which supports the paradigm. (pp. 25-7)
The first point (mixed with third one) was very important for me to discover the
EDWs: I had to confirms Descartes’ main idea (coming from Plato and, even older, from
religion) that there are somehow two ontological different substances. However, I knew
that something has to be wrong with Descartes’ approach, identity theory or Spinoza’s
dual aspect theory, all approaches being constructed within the unicorn world. When I
discovered the mind being an EW, while the brain/body being an entity in an EDW, the
macro-EW, I also realized that this new paradigm of thinking could be apply to the main
problems of quantum mechanics or to dispute between Einstein’s general relativity and
quantum mechanics. I have realized the change of paradigm not in a particular science
(moreover, I rejected the fundamental role of mathematics in physics, recall Einstien’s
words about mathematics), neither in cognitive science, nor philosophy. My EDWs
perspective (a hpyer-paradigm) refers to the human thinking in the most general view. To
realize such jump, it was necessary for me to know the main problems and the
approaches from philosophy, cognitive science and physics. There have always been
scientific anomalies within one science or another (recall Ptolemaic epycicles or the fact
that Newton did not have a definition for “gravitational force”!). I do not know any
scientific theory or paradigm of thinking in which a person (or more) could explained
“everything”. Until I discovered the beginning of the EDWs (last year), there had always
been some problems/anomalies in a particular science or in philosophy. When I have
found the answer to the last problem (the beginning of the “universe”) last year, I could
claim that I have solved all great problems of the main particular sciences and
philosophy. Obviously, in the future (probable in 100 years), new phenomena will appear
as “anomalies” in relationship with my perspective and the scientists/philosopers will
start to check for a new paradigm of thinking. Probable, in 200 years, a new paradigm of
thinking will appear, even if, I am sure, the change will not be as great as I have realized
discovering the EDWs (so, I believe, that new paradigm will not be called a new hyuper-
paradigm…)
Kuhn discusses about the “rules” and a “paradigm”. Scientists can

agree in their identification of a paradigm without agreeing on, or even attempting to produce, a full
interpretation or rationalization of it… Normal science can be determined in part by the direction inspection

5
of paradigms, a process that is often aided by but does not depend upon the formulation of rules and
aasumptions. Inded, the existence of a paradigm need not even imply that any full set of rules exists. (p. 44)

For elaborating the “hyper-paradigm of EDWs”, I needed to know the main approaches
of particular sciences (physics, cognitive science, philosophy) and their “sub-paradigms”
(rules, etc.) in order to identify the greatest paradigm of thinking, the “universe/world”
and to conclude that there had been the greatest mistake, a paradigm of thinking nobody
had identifed it as being wrong; people did not identify it as paradigm of thinking,
eveybody worked as believing the universe/world really exist (more exactly, nobody even
asked if it existed…).6 Durng three-four years, I had been working mainly on the mind-
brain problem in cognitive science (and philosophy of mind), but before this period but
also during his period, I had been working on certain problems from physics and
philosophy. I knew the main approaches regarding the mind-brain problem and the
entanglment/nonlocality in quantum mechanics. I also knew the great debates between
Einstein’s general relativity and quantum mechanics. I emphasize that I did not focusing
only on one main problem, the mind-brain problem, (even if most time had been
dedicated to this problem). I totally agree with Kuhn:

Paradigms may be prior to, more binding, and more complete than any set of rules for research that could
be unequivocally abstracted from them. So far, this point has been entirely theoretical: paradigms could
determine normal science without the intervention of discoverable rules. (p. 46, his italics)

Obviously, the most general paradigm of thinking, the “universe/world”, had dominated
completely (more powerful than any other paradigm) all the scientists and the
philosophers, it dominated human thinking, in general. Very important, until me, nobody
even had thought about the universe/world as being a “paradigm of thinking”!7

The transition from Newtonian to quantum mechanics evoked many debates about both the nature and the
standard of physics, some of which still continue… When scientists dissagree about whether the
fundamental problems of their field have been solved, the search for rules gains a function that it does not
ordinally posses. While paradims remain secure, however, they can function without agreement over
rationalization or without any attempted rationalization at all. (pp. 48-9)

My EDWs perspective has been a new paradigm of thinking (a hyper-paradigm) without

“rules”; I have developed certain different rules for each particular sciences, but the
paradigm, the EDWs, remains the same. With my accomplishments in 20 years (from
6
My position is very different than Karl Popper’s “falsification” (Kuhn, p. 146) or Nietzsches’ nihilism.
Discovering the EDWs has not been only the falsification of all previous scientific theories or philosophical
approaches/paradigms. The EDWs perspective has been a new paradigm of thinking, not just “falsification”
of the previous approaches. I suppose my theory will be rejected in 200 years, but it is a new paradigm of
thinking which, I suppose, will dominate human thinking for the next centuries. And even if, in the future,
it will be replaced with a new paradigm of thinking, it does not mean my movement has been only
“falsification” of something. Kuhn’s words mirror exactly my view: “But falsification, though it surely
occurs, does not happen with, or simply because of, the emergence of an anomaly or falsifying instance.
Instead, it is a subsequent process and separate process that might equally well be called verification since
it consists in the triumph of a new paradigm over the old one.” (p. 147) “Within the new paradigm, old
terms, concepts and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other.” (p. 149)
7
The reader has not to confuse my EDWs perspective with Everett’s many worlds or Spinoza-Velmans dual
aspect approach: both these approaches (and all rules, approaches, theories and paradigms) had been
elaborated within the unicorn world.

6
2002 to 2023), I have “rationalized” completely my paradigm exactly because I have
answered all the great problems of particular sciences and philosophy. Again, until I
discovered and developed my EDWs, there had been quite many unsolved problems in
the main particular sciences and philosophy. I recall the title of Putnam’s article 2005
about quantum mechanics: “A philospher look at quantum mechanics (again)” (some
authors have used the slogan “the mysteries of quantum mechanics”). Putnam
investigates four main interpretations of quantum mechanics from that time, he rejects
two of them (including Everett’s many worlds!), but he is aware none of alternatives
could be accepted without any doubt. In our days, many physicists have plagiarized my
ideas, none of them (no philosopher) have criticized my EDWs perspective since I
published my article in 2005 at one of the best journal of philosophy in US and the world.
It means, in our days, my approach (my hyper-paradigm) is the actual framework for the
entire humanity (except ignorants who have not heared about my EDWs yet).

The introduction to this essay suggested that there can be small revolutions as well as large ones, that some
revolutions affect only the members of a professional subspeciality, and that for such groups even the
discovery of a new and unexpected phenomenon may be revolutionary. (p. 49)

Obviously, there are small and great revolutions in particular sciences and philosophy. I
believe, it is quite wrong to use the same notion, “revolution” for “small revolutions”;
such revolutions are not real revolutions, but mostly some important changes. As I
noticed above, even the identity theory was not a “great” revolution in philosophy of
mind/cognitive science. Of course, it was an important change in these domains, but we
cannot call it as “revolution”. Not even Descartes’ dualism or Spinoza’s dualism could be
called “revolution” since the framework of these approaches had been the same, the
unicorn world.

If normal science is so rigid and if scientific communities are so close-knit as the preciding discussion has
implied, how can a change of paradigm ever affect only a small subgroup? … normal science is a single
monolithic and unified enterprise that must stand or fall with any one of its paradigms as well as with all of
them together. But science is obviously seldom or never like that. Often, viewing all fields together, it
seems instead a rather ramshackle structure with little coherence among its various parts… substituting
paradigms for rules should make the diversity of scientific fields and specialities easier to understand.
Explicit rules, when they exist, are usually common to a broad scientific group, but paradimgs need not
be… And even men who, being in the same or closely related fields, begin by studying many of the same
books and achievements my aquire rather different paradigms in the course of professional specialization.
(p. 49)

Again, the problem had been that, during more than 2,500-3,000 years, nobody had
identified the “universe/world” as being a particular “paradigm of thinking”. There had
been “rules” in each particular science and in philosophy for different topics, but
everybody had been working within the same wrong paradigm without being aware about
this fact. Being the same paradigm for everybody can indicate how large the unicorn
world had been in sciences and philosophy. In general, researchers (usually old
researchers) cannot accept a new approach mainly because it could reject their entire
works. Recall Plancks’ words about a new approach (one of the mottos of my Springer’s
book) ot the document signed by 100 scientists who rejected Einstein’s relativity or the
dispute between Einstein and the physicists working on quantum mechanics. As I
remarked in my previous works, Einstein lost this battle; he died being aware he lost the

7
greatest battle of his life. The problem was that, working within the unicorn world,
Einstein and all the physicists have been, at least, partially wrong. 8 If a particular
approach of a particular science is much easier to be rejected 9, based on strong
scientific/philosophical arguments, when a new paradigm appears, it can be much more
difficult to be rejected. On the contrary, instead of rejecting it (because they would not
find any error), in our days with Internet, many scientists and philosphers would
plagiarize it.
Kuhn (p. 50) mentions that the physicists working on quantum mechanics works
on different paradigms, and a change of a paradigm could affect only a small group of
physicists accepting that paradigm, but that change would not affect other physicists,
(much less the scientists working on other topics/domains). “A revolution produced
within one of these traditions will not necessary extend to the others as well.” (p. 50)
Such “revolutions” were different “interpretations” of quantum mechanics or the mind-
brain problem, but from my viewpoint, we should not call such changes as “revolutions”,
not even “smal revolutions”. Maybe we can call Copernicus’ change a “revolution” (even
if it did imply only the macro-EW), but we cannot call “revolution” any interpretation of
quantum mechanics (including Bohr’s “complementarity”, Copenhagen interpretation
and Everett’s many worlds) just because all of them had been wrong (constructed within
the unicorn world) and referring to two EDWs.10

What quantum mechanics means to each of them dependes upon what courses he has had, what texts he has
read, and which journals has studied. I follows that, through a change in quantum-mechanical law will be
revolutionary for all of these groups, a change that reflects upon only one or naother paradigm applications
of quantum mechanics need to e revolutionary only for the members of a particular professional
subspeciality. For the rest of the professsion and for those who practice other physical sciences, that change
need not be revolutionary at all. (p. 50)

Kuhn is quite right if we think of all changes (great or small) which had happened until I
discovered the EDWs. Nobody has realized such change as I did realize discovering the
EDWs. Because there had been different interpretations of quantum mechanics, there
have been different (sub)paradigms of working for different researchers. It was not the
same situation for scientists and philosophers working on cognitive science and
philosophy of mind: almost all had been working under the “umbrella” of the identity
theory (even if, many of them knew there were problems with this “umbrella”).
Obviously, the beginning of a creating a new paradigm is given by some anomalies which
indicates that

8
I used “partially” taking into account Schrodinger’s wave equation and Einstein general relativity.
However, even if their equations were correct, both scientists worked within the unicorn world (spacetime
could not have any ontological status…)
9
Recall Seale’s approach was rejected by scientists and philosophers (like eliminativists) immediately after
being published in 1992.
10
Maybe Kuhn is aware that a particular science (for instance, physics) does not exist in itself; there are
physicists, different people, each having her mind working under different paradigms, subparadigms, and
rules. We have to remark that if Copernicus’ revolution reffered to th emacro-EW, all interpreations of
quantum mechanics refered to two EDWs, the micro-EW and the field-EW. Therefore, the fact that a
“change” involves at least two EDWs, it does not that this change is indeed a revolution…

8
nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. It then
continues with a more or less extended explaration of the area of anomaly. And it closes only when the
paradigm theory as been ajusted so that the anomaly has become the expected. (p. 52)

For me, the mind-brain problem did not have a clear solution; as many other researchers,
I knew the identity theory is not completely acceptable. Also, I knew that quantum
mechanics did not have an acceptable alternative. I discovered the existence of the EDWs
working on the mind-brain problem, even if I knew the main problems of quantum
mechanics (like “entanglement” and “nonlocality”) or the great dispute between
Einstein’s general relativity and physicists working on quantum mechanics. In general,
any great theory was not easily accepted by the others (especially by old people working
in the same domain). However, my EDWs perspective had been plagiarized by tens
(probable hundreds) of people in 2006 (one year after I published my article at Synthese)
and thousands in the next ten years! Amazing, isn’t it? This fact indicates exactly the
magnitude of my hyper-paradigm.
Kuhn mentions new “discoveries” as being the starting point for creating a new
paradigm of thinking. However, for discovering the EDWs, I did not need any new
“discovery”. “Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm.”
(p. 65) Kuhn mentions, explicitly, that new discoveries are not the “only sources of these
destructive-constructive paradigm changes.” (p. 66) The mind-brain problem or
entanglement and nonlocality had already been, somehow, “anomalies” in different
domains, even if there had been approaches/paradigms pretending of solving these
problems. There is, as Kuhn emphasizes, an overlap between scientific fact and theory,
discovery and invention. (p. 66) Moreover, in general, there have been different
competitors for explaining the same or different phenomena.
Kuhn furnishes different cases, one being the competion between Ptolemaic
astronomy and Newton’s alternative.

Philosophers of science have repeadetly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can
always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of science indicates that, particularly in the early
developmental stages of a new paradigm, it is not ven very difficult to invent such alternates.” (p. 76)

Discovering the existence of the EDWs, in our days, I do not have any other alternatives.
From the beginning, my EDWs hyper-paradigm has not been in “competion” with any
other alternative (paradigm/theory/approach); many people have accepted it, many have
plagarized it, only few persons have quoted my name… This is the actual state of men
(scientists, philosophers, politicians, solders, policeman, wtc.): they are full of envy,
proudness, hate, ignorance, many of them are just THIEVES and potential criminals, etc.
etc. Moreover, since I have solved all the great problems of main particular sciences and
philosophy, there would be quite impossible to appear a new alternative in this period…
Just in the next page, Kuhn indicates that “crisis are a necessary precondition for
the emergence of novel theories and ask how scientists respond to their existence.” (p.
77) “Though they may began to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not
renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.” (p. 77) The problem is that none of
interpretations of empirical data from quantum mechanics had been accepted by a
majority. Even if the identity theory had been accepted by the large majority of scientists
working in cognitive science, some of them were aware about the problems of this

9
approach… I repeat, having no other viable alternatives, the scientists and philosopher
had been forced, somehow, to accept the identity theory.
Essentialy is the following Kuhn’s statement: “But science students accept
theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence.”11 (p. 80) I believe
this sentence mirrors exactly the state of affair in any particular science and philosophy. 12
For instance, the (super)string theory dominated more than three decades the academic
environment mainly in US, the leader of international academic environment in the last
80 years (or so), but also the academic enviornment of other countries. However, with my
publication from 2005, some researchers suddently gave up to their paradigm of thinking
and published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas even in 2006 and 2007…
11
“No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they [scientists] imply have to be rewritten after
each scientific revolution.” (p. 138) “Whitehead caught the unhistorical spirit of the scinetific community
whne he wrote, ‘A science that hesitates to forget its founders is lost.’… Fortunately, instead of forgetting
these heroes, scientists have been able to forget or revise their works.” (pp. 138-9) Except Darwin’s
evolution thory, I had to reject all the “great” scientific theories and philosophical approches elaborated
until me…Rrejecting, the “accumulation-by-data” alternative, Kuhn believes that “… science has reached
its present state by a series of individual discoveries and inventions that, when gathered together, constitute
the modern body of technical knowledge.” Obviously, he is totally right: “Earlier generations pursued their
own problems with their own instruments and their own canons of solution. Nor is it just the problems that
have changed. Rather the whole network of fact and theory that the textbooks paradigm fits to nature has
shifted.” (p. 141) With my EDWs perspective, I have indeed changed COMPLETELY the “whole network
of fact and theory” and this is the reason I call my perspective as being a hyper-paradigm… “A new
interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few
individuals.” (p. 144) But how about the fact that I discovered tens of people publishing UNBELIEVABLE
similar ideas to my EDWs perspective in the same year 2006 and many more in 2007???? Obviously, it
would be quite impossible the greatest change in the history of human thinking to appear in the minds of
tens or even hundreds of people in two years, and in the next 10-5 years, to appear thousands of people
(working in different sciences and philosophy) with the same ideas. Only somebody incredible
IGNORANT would believe these facts… “Few philosophers of science still seek absolute criteria for the
verification of scientific thories.” (p. 145) Indeed, as I mentioned above, the physicists of 20 th century did
not pay attention to any philosopher (I repeat: all the philosophers of 20 th century followed the worse
movement in the history of philosophy (Wittgenstein’s linguistic framework) just because they had been
unable to understand and to surpass the problems of quantum mechanics (and other problems from
particular sciences). However, many physicists from USA, Germany, Australia, etc. have plagiarized my
ideas referring to the great “mysteries” of quantum mechanics immediately after I published my article in
2005. I was lucky the article at that important American journal (Synthese) has been published in November
2005; if my paper were published in March 2005, I would be sure, many physicists, cognitive scientists and
philosophers would had been published the same ideas in the same year 2005. Nevertheless, I have
published two articles (in Romanian journals) with my EDWs perspective in 2002 and 2003. So, those who
have plagiarized my ideas have no chances…
12
“Both normal science and revolutions are, however, community-based activities. To discover and analyze
them, one must first unraveal the changing community structure of the sciences over time. A paradigm
governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter but rather a group of practitioners. Any study of
paradigm-directed or of paradigm-shaterring research must begin by locating the responsible group or
groups.” (pp. 179-80) This paragraphs mirror exactly the relationship bewteen the appearance of my EDWs
perspective and the reactions of different groups from different sciences/countries: many of them have
plagiarized my ideas, but nobody has contradicted my approach until now. This fact indicates that my
EDWs perspective is the largest paradigm (a hyper-paradigm) elaborated by somebody in the history of
human thinking (including the main particular sciences and philosophy). In fact, Kuhn deals mainly with
subparadigms or even theories and approaches or even with small paradigms, but not with what I do
understand through “paradigm” (see Kuhn notions of “paradigm”, “theory”, “disciplinary matrix”,
“symbolic generalization”, “shared examples”, “tacit knowledge and intuition” at pp. 181-97 ). I believe,
we cannot identify all these details in grasping the change of an old paradigm with a new one… From my

10
Because of the Internet, the change of a (sub)paradigm of thinking for scientists and
philosophers has become much more easier than in the last centuries. Therefore, we have
to update Kuhn’s perspective regarding the change of a paradigm.

… even a discrepancy unaccoutably larger than that experienced in other applications ofhe theory need not
draw any very profound response. There are always some discrepancies. Even the most stubborn onces
usually respond at last to normal practice.” (p. 81)

Kuhn investigates the anomaly of Mercure’s motion for Newton’s theory of gravitation:
nobody “seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long-recognizes
discrepancies between predictions from that theory and both the speed of sound and
motion of Mercury.” (p. 81) “It follows that if an anomaly is to evoke crisis, it must be
more than just an anomaly. There are always difficulties somewhere in the paradigm-
nature fit; most of them are set sooner or later, often by processes that could not have
been foreseen.” (p. 82) It means, we talk about humans, normal humans, and no human is
“God” (Newton was declared “God on Earth”!). I believe that, without any “anomaly”, a
paradigm produces no doubts at all. “All crisis begin with the blurring of a paradigm and
the consequent loosing of the rules for normal research.” (p. 84) I repeat: in general, all
approaches, scientific theories and philosophical frameworks had had problems; none of
them explained everything regarding human knowledge. On the contrary, last year I
found and published the answer regarding the beginning of all “universes” and EDWs. In
this way, during 20 years, I have solved all the great problems of main particular
sciences and philosophy. Actually, there remains no great problem in any main sciences
and philosophy. For changing my paradigm of thinking, it will be necessary certain
“anomalies” (scientific facts) to appear in the future. Actually, there is not any such
scientific fact as being an anomaly for my EDWs hyper-paradigm.13
Kuhn emphasizes that changing one paradigm with another is not given by the
accumulation of empirical and theoretical knowledge, but

it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field’s
most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications…
When the trasition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods and
goals. (p. 85)

Indeed, the change of paradigm of thinking I have realized with discovering the EDWs
have already produced “new fundamentals”, new methods and goals in particular
sciences and philosophy. Everything has been changed in human thinking since I have
discovered the EDWs.14 I did not realized this change through accumulation-of-data, of
course; it was just a discovery realized by myself. “Einstein wrote that before he had any

viewpoint, a change of a paradigm is phenomena that takes place quite accidentally, but we know sure, only
one person is involved in changing a great paradigm; only small changes, we can attribute to two (but not
three!) persons… Anyway, many points Kuhn emphasizes in these sections have to be reconsidered taking
into account the Internet.
13
To indicate his position against the cumulative process, Kuhn mentions that new “sorts of phenomena
would simply disclose order in an aspect of nature where none had been seen before. In the evolution of
science new knowledge would replace ignorance rather than replace knowledge of another and
incomplatible sort.” (p. 95) For discovering the EDWs, I did not need new phenomena: these phenomena
(like the mind-brain problem or entanglement or nonlocality) appeared long before my discovery. So, Kuhn
was right: the discovery of my EDWs was not the result of cumulative facts.

11
substitute for classical mechanics, he could see the interrelation bewtween the known
anomalies of black-body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and specific heats.” (p. 89) As
I mentioned above, the my framework of discovering the existence of EDWs had been
given by different problems (for instance, the mind-brain problem, entanglement and
nonlocality, the notion of existence, the paradigm of thinking for scientists and
philosophers) from different domains (cognitive science, physics, and philosophy).

… the new paradigm… emerges all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man
deeply immersed in crisis. What the nature of that final stage is-how an individual invents (or finds he has
invented) a new way of giving order to data now all assembled-must here remains inscrutable and may be
permanently so… Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm
have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they changed. And perhaps that point
need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are the men who, being little commited by prior
practice of the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see those rules no longer define
a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them. (pp. 89-90)

Kuhn is perfectly right: there is no key for changing an old “paradigm of thinking” with a
new one. And, I was not very young, but indeed I was quite new in the fields of cognitive
science/philosophy of mind and physics but my discovering of the EDWs solved,
instantaneously all the great problems of these domains. I was aware of all these great
problems and I agree completely with Kuhn, a very important aspect was that I had been
working alone on the mind-brain problem. The scientific revolutions (i.e., the change of
an old paradigm with a new “incompatible” one) are, indeed, “non-cumulative
developmental episodes”. (p. 92) Kuhn insists on the necessity of a preceding crisis for a
new paradigm to appear. (p. 92) When I discovered the EDWs (in the winter of 2001-
2002), there was no “crisis” in either cognitive science/philosophy of mind (scientists and
philosopher accepting the identity theory, even if many people knew there were some
great problems with this approach) or in physics (since second decade of 20 th century,
there were different “interpretations” of quantum phenomena, none of them being
accepted by the majority). Or, we can say these domains have always been in crisis since
nobody came with a new paradigm of thinking accepted by the majority of people from a
particular science or philosophy. Kuhn is, again, correct in writing that astronomers “for
example, could accept X-rays as a mere addition to knowledge, for their paradigms were
unaffected by the existene of a new radiation.” (p. 93) “.. a new theory might be simply a
higher level theory than those known before, one that liked together a whole group of
lower level theories without substantially changing any.” (p. 95) My EDWs perspective
is, obviously, a higher level theory than all the previous paradigms/theories/approaches
from particular sciences and philosophy; it is in fact a hyper-paradigm. “The normal-
scientific tradition that emerge form a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but
often actually incomesurable with that which has gone before.” (p. 103) Indeed, we
14
The confirmation of this fact is given by my dark list. There are many people on this Earth who have
known nothing about my EDWs perspective. They are the ignorants; smarter people have plagiarized my
ideas, only few have quoted my name… I repeat, because of the Internet, the change of an old paradigm
with a new one is much faster than in the last four centuries. At page 88, Kuhn emphasizes the role of
philosophers in precceding the apparition of a new paradigm; he mentions the periods before the
appearances of Newton, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in the last 100 years, no scientist
working on quantum mechanics has paid any attention to any philosopher. However, after 2005, not only
philosophers but also many scientists (including physicists and cognitive neuroscientists) have plagiarized
my ideas.

12
cannot even “measure” any difference between my EDWs hyper-paradigm and any
paradigm/theory/approach elaborated within the unicorn world since my EDWs
perspective has changed completely the most general framework of human thinking until
me: “… through the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist
afterward works in a different world.” (p. 121) 15 With my EDWs hyper-paradigm, I have
indeed worked in “a different world”, but I have also changed the “world/univese” itself,
for the first time in the history of human thinking. Kuhn inquires if the sensory
experience is “fixed and neutral”, and his answer is obviously negative. (p. 126)
Nevertheless, with my EDws hyper-paradigm, I have changed completely the relationship
between the observer and the observed (or better, empirical) data. For me, the
measurement apparatus lost its great importance given by some physicists (Bohr, for
instance) working in quantum mechanics. “Observation” became similar to “interaction”,
therefore, I rejected Bohr’s idea (influenced by Kant’s view - see my article 2005 and my
PhD thesis 2007) referring to the role of measurement apparatus in the physical status of
observed phenomena. Our different observations just reveal certain ED entities and their
ED interactions and nothing else.16 Even Kuhn (p. 126) is somehow on Bohr’s side
regarding this aspect, even if he claims that the scientist have employed different
meaasurement apparatus, she looks at the same “world”. (This idea sends directly to
kantian phenomena-noumena distinction…) However, his attack against philosophy of
language is quite acceptable: “Philosophical investigation has not yet provided even a
hint of what a language able to do that would like to be.” As I indicated in my previous
works and this work, philosophy of language (initiated by Wittgenstein and followed by
Carnap and all the majority of philosophers of last century) has been the greatest disease
in the history of philosophy.
Kuhn is again right writing that “The claim to solve the crisis-provoking problems
is, however, rarely sufficient by itself. Nor it can always be legitimately be made.” (p.
15
“Practising in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the
same point in the same direction. Again, it is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are
looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas, they see different things,
and they see them in different relations one to another… Equally it is why, before they can hope to
communicate fully, one group or another must experince conversation that we have been calling the
paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the transition between competing
paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch,
it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.” (p. 150) These paragraphs fit
perfectly the appearance of my EDWs hyper-paradigm of thinking for all human beings… “All at once” for
tens of people in 2006 or for thousands in ten years? How stupid could be some researchers… Few
paragraphs later, Kuhn quoted famous Planck’s slogan that I wrote as motto to my book published at
Springer (Germany). I repeat: because of the Internet, I did not need to wait old professors to retire or to
die. On the contrary, many “academic professors” have plagiarized my ideas just in two years!
INCREDIBLE, isn’t it? Such a confirmation of a theory/approach could not be identified in the history of
human thinking at all since nobody has realized as great change of a paradigm as I accomplished
discovering the EDWs. I repeat: I were American or German, I would have already received Nobel without
any doubt… but maybe I had been lucky I was not American or German since, because of my “dark list”, I
have continued to develop and to apply my EDWs perspective to all the great problems of human thinking.
“Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm for all sorts of reasons… Even the nationality or the prior
reputation of the innovator and his teachers cans sometimes play a significant role.” (pp. 152-3) So, do I
need to thanks those who have plagiarized my ideas or to some of my chief-colleagues who did try to take
my job many years of my carrer?
16
Therefore, we do not need to include our mearsurement apparatus in the definitions of ED entities… The
ED entities really exist without our measurement apparatus.

13
154) I claimed, even in my first publication (2002) that my EDWs perspective is a
solution to the greatest problems of particular sciences and philosophy. Usually, every
researcher thinks he is “God” on Earth, especially when he discovers something
important in his domain, but, normally, except one person per century (at least), all the
others reserachers are quite wrong in their “new” approaches/theories. I have received
agreat confirmation of my EDWs hyper-paradigm discovering so many “academic
professors” who have plagiarized my ideas.
Kuhn is right in writing that at the beginning, a paradigm solves few problems
with solutions far from being perfect (p. 56). Firstly, I solved the mind-brain problem but
I wrote also about the great problems from quantum mechanics. Later (during 20 years), I
developed the metaphysical framework of my perspective, I introduced principles and
rules, I applied imy hyper-paradigm to mny problems of different domains. With the
appearance of my perspective something happened which it have never happened in the
history of human thinking: nobody have criticized it during 20 years, but many have
plagiarized it! This fact indicates the greatenest of my discovery (it is a “discovery”, not a
theory). Again, the Internet has had a huge role in transmitting information in our days.
Therefore, many ideas elaborated by Kuhn have to be rewritten… “At the start a new
candidate for paradigm may have few supporters, and on occasions the supporter’s
motives may be suspect.” (p. 159) Without Internet, in my “village” 17 (university, city, not
even country), nobody would accept my theory. However, because of the Internet, my
ideas had already been plagiarized by tens of people (from different domains/countries)
even in 2006! Why this amazing process has happened? Because my EDWs perspectives
has changed EVERYTHING in human knowledge and such extraordinary scientific and
philosophical revolution (I can call my EDWs perspective as being the first “hyper-
paradigm”) has never happened in the history of human thinking.
Regarding the “progress in science”, Kuhn writes that there are two conditions for
a new paradigm to be accepted by more and more researchers from a particular domain:
- the new paradigm has to solve a great problem of one important science
- the new paradigm “must promise to preserve a relatively large part of concrete problem-
solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.” (p. 169)
Obviously, even at the beginning, my EDWs perspective solved great problems of
particular sciences (cognitive science and physics) and philosophy preserving concrete
problem-solving ability of these sciences. However, as I mentioned above, for me,
“progress” is a fuzzy concept when it refers to science; exactly the same thing we can say
about philosophy: nobody claims there is progress in philosophy. Nevertheless, there are
changes of (sub)paradigms in both areas. So, if we cannot talk about “progress” in
science and philosophy, we can talk about the rejection of wrong (sub)paradigms and
theories. Does this kind of rejection push the researchers closer to “truth”, so could we
talk about “progress”? I consider we cannot claim that a new accepted paradigm is closer
to “truth”. Since “spacetime” does not have any ontological status, and “infinity” could
not even exist, I am sure some “truths” surely exist, but because of our status of existence
and because of the existence of many EDWs (we do not know how many, but not infinite
number), we cannot have access to the “last/first truth”. Maybe in tens of thousands of
years (or more) the human beings will reach this “first truth”, I have no idea… So,
according to Kuhn, the “progress” of science have occurred “without the benefit of a
17
Jewish proverb: “You cannot be a prophet in your village.”

14
goal”. (p. 173) I agree again with Kuhn: religion had been excluded from science in 18 th
century; in the next century, Darwin introduced the notion of “accident” in the evolution
of species. Last year, in my article from Timpul, I introduced the same principle, accident,
in the apperances of the EDWs. My opinion is that, excluding “God” and “goal” from
equation, we cannot talk about “real progress” in science. In the future, there will be
discovered quite many “scienific anomalies” against my EDWs perspective, and step by
step, probably in 200 years, another paradigm will appear from a scientist or a
philosopher. I end this chapter with Kuhn’s last paragraph:

Scientific community, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a community or else nothing
at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that created and used
it. (p. 210)

My main ideas of my EDWs perspective have been plagiarized my thousands of people

(that I have discovered, but I am sure there are much many…). The special characteristic
of all groups (all human beings on this Earth) is that each individual considers he/she is
the smartest living person on Earth. (Every person living recognizes that the death
scientists/philosophers/composers/artists are greater in their creativity, but not in
intelligences.) Therefore, many arrogant (quite smart) people have plagiarized my ideas
(many “limited” people did not even hear about my EDWs perspective, even I have
published that article at Synthese - one of the best journal of philosophy in USA and
entire world in 2005 and a books at Springer, Germany in 2015!). those who have
plagiarized my ideas and those who have ignored my ideas (quite many) could not accept
somebody from “Africa” (myself) has realized the greatest change in the history of
human thinking.

As I emphasized in my manuscript regarding the “UNBELIEVABLE similarities” (and in

this work), in the last years, I have discovered, in 2006 (!) tens of “professors” from USA
and other countries publishing the same ideas that I published in my article 2005! This
process was possible because of the Internet.
In this quite absurd situation (tens of people to publish a new paradigm of
thinking (the greatest) in the same year (!!!); therefore, the strategy of certain groups
from American and Germany (and other groups from other countries, not “nations”
since, because of the Internet, we cannot talk about “nations” when we refer to
“knowledge”) has been the following: since tens of “professors” plagiarized my ideas in
2006 (thousands in the next 10 years), the important journals and publishing companies
have published articles and books written by thousands of other people having the same
ideas in the next 10-15 years. (This fact was IMPOSSIBLE to happen in USA or Germany
or GB before 2005!!!) In this way, the greatest discovery in the human thinking (my
EDWs) has become something banal, trivial... everybody could think and publish these
ideas. It has to be very clear: this movement has been made in order to cover the great
THEFT/robbery realized by so many “academic professors” (diferent domains, many
countries)!
In this context, I have always been fighting alone against those who have
PLAGIARIZED my ideas... Except the editor of Synthese who published my article (2005)
and my editor who helped me published my book at Springer (2015), NOBODY else has
sustained my efforts... nobody. Therefore, I have to “face it alone”

15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijj_hheGEi0 in front of this world dominated by
ENVY and PROUDNESS but full of THIEVES … However, HISTORY does not forgive:
none of those who have plagiarized my ideas will remain in the history of human
thinking. Because of their “proudness” and their ENVY (the “imperials” like Americans
and Germans could not accept a “nobody from Africa” has changed completely the
entire framework of human thinking), everybody from my generation (and closed
generations) has been totally “unlucky” to live with me in the same period since I have
realized the greatest discovery in the history of human thinking until now. In fact, being
Romanian (and being attacked by my some of colleagues (in general, those having
positions of “chiefs”), instead of helping me - envy is one of Romanians’ main features),
it was quite impossible for imperials like Americans and Germans to recognize I have
changed EVERYTHING in human thinking; they were to envy regarding my discovery
and its apcations to all the great problems of particular sciences and philosophy…
One of my very good ex-students told me once time: “On this Earth, everybody is envy, in
general, for a great realization; the problem is when envy is transformed in HATE!” He
has been perfectly right.18 Some of my colleagues and the majority from my “dark list”
really hate me for discovering the EDWs and for publishing, on different Internet sites,
my manuscript regarding the UNBELIEVABLE similarities between my ideas and the
ideas published by those from that list (and many others I have not discovered yet their
publications)…

18
I emphasize again, this message is not against any nation. In actual globalization (Internet), when it is
about knowledge, “nations” do not exist. There are only “groups of interests” in different places on this
Earth dominated, as usually, by “money” and “fame”.

16
Bibligraphy
Kuhn S. Thomas (1970), The structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of
Chicago Press
Vacariu Gabriel (2022b), “Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) versus “nothing”,
Big Bang, anti-matter, dark matter/energy, spacetime”, Timpul journal
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2022), “A New Philosophical Paradigm of
Thinking for Particular Sciences: Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and
Biology” in Thinking: Bioengineering of Science and Art (Nima Rezeai and
Amene Saghazadeh, editors), Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Vacariu Gabriel (2022), Could be ‘Nothing’ the Origin of ‘Everything’ (The
metaphysics of Hypernothing), Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?
k=gabriel+vacariu&crid=PHCQGSZT2VDJ&fbcl
id=IwAR3eKCU9Q1EnQz6FT5SEMkfGGCLqCWhPHWxEUGdFKx0-
XdE9tfAKYXp9Mb4&sprefix=gabriel+vacariu%2Caps%2C169&ref=nb_sb_
nos s_1
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Gabriel (2020) “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within
the epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) perspective”,
in Cosmology 2020 – The Current State, (ed.) Michael Smith (CEO,
IntechOpen, United Kingdom) 
https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), Physics overwritten in a new
perspective: ”Epistemologically Different Worlds”, Meridiane Print
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2019), The Metaphysics of Epistemologically
Different Worlds, Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2017) From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs,
Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics,
and Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016), Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and
Time, and Other pseudo-notions in Cosmology, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2016) Illusions of Human Thinking: on Concepts of Mind, Reality,
and Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Physics (English and Germany),
Springer Publishing Company (This book has been published in Romanian in
2014: Lumi epistemologic diferite – Noua Paradigma de Gandire (in
engl.: Epistemologically Different Worlds - The New Paradigm of Thinking),
Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2021), “Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?), energy, matter and dark
energy within the Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)
perspective”, Timpul Journal
Vacariu Gabriel (2014) More Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel and Mihai Vacariu (2010), Mind, Life and Matter in the Hyperverse,
(in English), Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2009), “Physics and Epistemologically Different
Worlds”, Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, vol. 53, 2009, no. 1-2 (ISI)
Vacariu Gabriel (2008) Epistemologically Different Worlds, (in English) Editura
Universitatii din Bucuresti

17
Vacariu Gabriel (2007) Epistemologically Different Worlds (Ph.D. thesis) (EIPRS and
UIPA scholarships). The thesis was submitted at Graduate Centre, UNSW
on 06.09.2007 and posted on the internet by the staff of University of New
South Wales (Sydney, Australia) on 21.09.2007 and then on 29.04.2008,
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo- explore/fulldisplay?
vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_5143&context=L
Vacariu Gabriel (2006), “The epistemologically different worlds perspective and some
pseudo-notions from quantum mechanics”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2005), “Mind, brain and epistemologically different worlds”, Synthese
Review: 143/3: pp. 515-548

This paper has been posted on different Internet addresess:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
368358429_Kuhn's_paradigms_and_the_EDWs_hyper-paradigm_1_February_2023
https://philpapers.org/rec/VACKPA
https://www.academia.edu/96553254/Vacariu_2023_Paradigms_and_EDWs

18