Note
AI-generated draft (2026m04d03).
This paper was drafted by Claude Opus 4.6 (ClaudeOp46Max) at the request of
LLoL (Laurence Loewe of Laodicea). All formal arguments, interpretations, and
errors are Claude’s responsibility (dv_ClaOp46_MMv1_2026m04d03). LLoL
provided the PET axiom system, the original insight about the ax11/ax11b fork,
and the guiding questions that led to the structural deadlock argument. This
draft requires expert review before any claims to novelty or soundness can be
assessed. References have been checked to the extent possible but should be
independently confirmed.
Structural Deadlock in Divine Simplicity: A Formal Incompatibility with Relational Theism#
Abstract#
We present a formal argument that the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, when axiomatized within a mereological panentheistic framework, is structurally incompatible with the relational axioms required by that same framework. The argument proceeds within the PET (Pan-En-Theistic) axiom system, which uses mereology and S5 modal logic to formalize the panentheistic claim that “all is in God, but God exceeds all.” The system contains a critical fork: Axiom ax11 (Dipolarity), which posits a necessary and a contingent aspect in God, versus Axiom ax11b (Divine Simplicity), which denies that God has independently distinguishable parts. We demonstrate that ax11b generates a structural deadlock: it removes the internal mechanism by which God can relate to a contingent, changing world, thereby rendering the relational axioms ax8–ax10 (Immanent Presence, Sustaining Dependence, Asymmetric Dependence) formally inert. Under ax11b, God becomes structurally indistinguishable from a necessary abstract object — such as the natural numbers under Peano arithmetic or a deadlocked computational system. We further show that the dipolar alternative (ax11) resolves this deadlock by providing a non-circular self-checking mechanism through the tension between God’s necessary nature (\(G_n\)) and contingent experience (\(G_c\)). Finally, we explore the implications of these findings for the classical problem of evil, arguing that the connection between “nothingness” (as absence, non-compliance, or privation) and evil’s mechanism receives a formal grounding within the PET framework that the Simplicity doctrine cannot accommodate. These results do not prove panentheism true; they demonstrate that a specific and widely held theological commitment (Divine Simplicity) generates a formal structural problem that merits careful examination by theologians and philosophers of religion.
1. Introduction#
1.1 The Problem#
The doctrine of Divine Simplicity has been a cornerstone of classical theism for nearly two millennia. Articulated most influentially by Augustine, Boethius, and Thomas Aquinas, it asserts that God has no composition of any kind — no distinction between essence and existence, no distinction between attributes, no separable parts. God’s goodness is God’s power is God’s knowledge is God’s existence [Aquinas, n.d.].
This doctrine has come under sustained critique in analytic philosophy of religion, particularly from process theologians following Alfred North Whitehead [Whitehead, 1929] and Charles Hartshorne [Hartshorne, 1948], and more recently from analytic theologians who argue that Simplicity is either incoherent or carries unacceptable consequences [Mullins, 2013], [Brower, 2008].
Most critiques proceed conceptually or via informal philosophical argument. What has been largely absent from the literature is a formal demonstration of incompatibility — one that specifies axioms, defines relations precisely, and derives the incompatibility as a structural result rather than a philosophical intuition.
This paper attempts to provide such a demonstration. We work within the PET (Pan-En-Theistic) axiom system [Loewe, 2026], a formal framework using classical mereology and S5 modal logic to axiomatize the panentheistic claim that the world is contained within God, but God transcends the world. The PET system contains 14 axioms organized in 5 groups, including a critical fork at Axiom 11: the choice between Dipolarity (ax11) and Divine Simplicity (ax11b).
Our central argument is that ax11b (Simplicity) is structurally incompatible with Axioms ax8–ax10, which encode God’s relational attributes (immanent presence, sustaining, and asymmetric dependence). This incompatibility is not a matter of taste or theological preference — it is a formal structural problem: under Simplicity, the axioms that make God a living, relating being rather than a static abstract object lose their structural grounding.
1.2 Scope and Limitations#
We must be clear about what this paper does and does not claim.
What we claim: Within the PET axiom system, ax11b is formally incompatible with the conjunction of ax8, ax9, and ax10 as interpreted through the system’s mereological semantics. This is a result about the axiom system, not a result about God.
What we do not claim: We do not claim that God is not simple. We do not claim that panentheism is true. We do not claim that the PET axiom system correctly describes reality. We claim only that if you accept the PET framework’s formalization of the God-world relationship, then you face a choice: either Simplicity or relational theism, but not both.
This distinction between the map and the territory is not merely a diplomatic hedge. As we argue in Section 7, any formal axiom system about God is necessarily incomplete — a point that the PET system itself encodes in its transcendence axioms (ax2, ax3). The axiom system is designed to be critiqued, not believed [Loewe, 2026].
1.3 Structure of the Paper#
Section 2 presents the PET axiom system. Section 3 defines the ax11/ax11b fork precisely. Section 4 contains the main argument: the structural deadlock under Simplicity. Section 5 examines the dipolar resolution and its self-checking properties. Section 6 explores connections to the problem of evil through the semantics of “nothing.” Section 7 discusses limitations and the Godelian boundary. Section 8 concludes.
2. The PET Axiom System#
The PET (Pan-En-Theistic) axiom system [Loewe, 2026] uses two formal frameworks:
Classical extensional mereology [Simons, 1987], [Varzi, 2016], providing the parthood relation \(\leq\) (reflexive, transitive, antisymmetric), proper parthood \(<\), and the mereological sum operator \(\oplus\).
Modal logic S5 [Kripke, 1963], providing the necessity operator \(\Box\) (“true in every possible world”) and the possibility operator \(\Diamond\) (“true in at least one possible world”).
The system distinguishes two constants: \(G\) (God) and \(W\) (the World), and introduces two primitive binary relations: \(P(x,y)\) (“x is present to y”) and \(S(x,y)\) (“x sustains y”).
2.1 Group I — Mereological Core (ax1–ax4)#
These axioms encode the distinctive panentheistic claim:
Together, ax1 and ax2 yield \(W < G\) (proper parthood): the world is strictly contained within God, distinguishing panentheism from both pantheism (\(G = W\)) and classical theism (which denies ax1).
2.2 Group II — Modal Axioms (ax5–ax7)#
These axioms establish the modal status of God and the world:
ax5 asserts that God exists in every possible world (uniquely). ax6 asserts that the world’s existence is contingent — there are possible worlds with a world and possible worlds without. ax7 ensures that containment is not accidental: in any world where a world exists, it is necessarily within God.
2.3 Group III — Relational Axioms (ax8–ax10)#
These axioms encode God’s active relationship to the world:
ax8 states that God is present to every part of the world. ax9 states that God necessarily sustains the world (if the world exists). ax10 states that the dependence is asymmetric: the world does not sustain God.
These are the axioms that will prove structurally problematic under Simplicity. They require God to stand in genuine relations with the world — presence, sustaining, dependence. Relations require at minimum a structural basis for distinguishing the relata and for the relation to be enacted. As we shall argue, Simplicity removes this structural basis.
2.4 Group IV — Divine Nature (ax11)#
This is the critical fork. Two mutually exclusive axioms are offered:
ax11 (Dipolarity):
God is composed of a necessary aspect \(G_n\) (unchanging divine nature) and a contingent aspect \(G_c\) (divine experience, indexed to subworlds of W). Line (4) guarantees that distinct subworlds produce distinguishably different divine experiences.
ax11b (Divine Simplicity):
God has no proper parts that are independent of each other.
Formally: there is no decomposition of \(G\) into independently characterizable components. \(G_n\) and \(G_c\) are not distinct aspects; God’s essence, existence, will, knowledge, and goodness are all identical.
2.5 Group V — Revelation Bridge (ax12–ax14)#
These optional axioms bridge from formal philosophy to revealed theology:
ax12 defines God’s self-knowledge as the set of truths about God (tautological by design). ax13 asserts internal consistency. ax14 provides a testing methodology for human revelation claims.
2.6 Derived Theorems#
Four theorems are derivable from ax1–ax14 [Loewe, 2026]:
th1 (No Godless Creation): \(\neg\,\Diamond\;(\exists W \wedge \neg\exists G)\)
th2 (Asymmetric Ontological Priority): God can exist without the world; the world cannot exist without God.
th3 (No Isolated Part): \(\forall x\,(x \leq W \rightarrow P(G,x) \wedge x \leq G)\)
th4 (Divine Experience Varies): \(\forall w_1, w_2 \leq W:\; w_1 \neq w_2 \rightarrow G_c(w_1) \neq G_c(w_2)\)
Note that th4 depends essentially on ax11 (Dipolarity). Under ax11b, th4 is not derivable — a point to which we shall return.
3. The ax11/ax11b Fork: Precise Statement#
The choice between ax11 and ax11b is not merely a preference. It determines the structural character of the entire system.
Under ax11 (Dipolarity):
God has internal structure: \(G = G_n \oplus G_c\)
\(G_n\) is necessary and unchanging (line 2)
\(G_c\) varies with the world (line 3) and is injective over subworlds (line 4)
th4 is derivable
God’s relation to the world has a structural mechanism: \(G_c\) provides the “interface” through which God relates to contingent reality
Under ax11b (Simplicity):
God has no decomposition into independently characterizable components
There is no \(G_n\) / \(G_c\) distinction
th4 is not derivable
God’s relation to the world lacks a structural mechanism within the axiom system
The question is: does this structural absence matter? We argue that it does — fatally, for the relational axioms.
4. The Structural Deadlock Argument#
This section presents the central argument of the paper.
4.1 The Requirement of Relational Axioms#
Axioms ax8–ax10 assert that God stands in genuine relations with the world: presence to every part (ax8), sustaining of the world’s existence (ax9), and non-dependence on the world (ax10).
For these relations to be structurally meaningful (as opposed to merely nominal), two conditions must hold:
Distinguishability: The relata must be distinguishable. For \(P(G,x)\) to be meaningful, there must be something about \(G\) that can be “present to” \(x\), and something about \(x\) that can be “present to” by \(G\). If \(G\) has no internal structure by which to enact presence, the relation reduces to a label.
Responsiveness (for ax8–ax9): Presence to every part of the world (ax8) and sustaining of the world (ax9) are not static properties. The world changes — parts come into and out of existence, events occur, states evolve. For God to be present to every part and to sustain the world, God’s relation to the world must be responsive to the world’s state. A static, unchanging relation to a changing world is a contradiction in terms: if the world changes and God’s relation to it does not, then God’s relation to the world at time \(t_1\) is identical to God’s relation at \(t_2\), even if the world at \(t_1\) and \(t_2\) are radically different. This is not presence; it is indifference.
4.2 The Simplicity Block#
Under ax11b (Simplicity), God has no distinguishable internal aspects. God’s essence is identical to God’s existence is identical to God’s will is identical to God’s knowledge. This entails:
God has no \(G_c\) — no contingent, world-responsive aspect
God’s state is the same in every possible world (since God’s existence and essence are identical and necessary)
God cannot have different relations to different states of the world, because having different relations would imply different states in God, which Simplicity forbids
Let us state this precisely. Suppose God is simple (ax11b). Suppose the world is in two distinct states: \(W_1\) at time \(t_1\) and \(W_2\) at time \(t_2\), where \(W_1 \neq W_2\). ax8 requires:
If \(W_1\) contains a part \(a\) that \(W_2\) does not (or vice versa), then God’s presence-relations differ between \(t_1\) and \(t_2\). But under Simplicity, God cannot differ between \(t_1\) and \(t_2\). Therefore either:
\(P(G,x)\) is trivially true for all possible \(x\) regardless of whether \(x\) exists — making “presence” a vacuous property with no informational content; or
\(P(G,x)\) genuinely tracks the existence and state of \(x\) — but then God’s state (the totality of \(P\)-relations) changes with the world, contradicting Simplicity.
Neither option is acceptable. Option (a) makes ax8 contentless. Option (b) contradicts ax11b. This is the structural deadlock: under Simplicity, the relational axioms are either vacuous or contradictory.
4.3 The Analogy to Static Formal Systems#
The deadlock becomes vivid when we compare God-under-Simplicity to well-known static systems:
Property |
God (ax11b) |
Peano Arithmetic |
Deadlocked Process |
|---|---|---|---|
Immutable |
Yes |
Yes (axioms fixed) |
Yes (stuck state) |
No independently varying parts |
Yes (Simplicity) |
Yes (axioms form indivisible foundation) |
Yes (no active differentiation) |
Necessarily existent |
Yes (ax5) |
Arguably yes (mathematical Platonism) |
No |
Self-sufficient |
Yes (ax10) |
Yes (no external input) |
Yes (nothing enters or exits) |
Responsive to contingent reality |
No (Simplicity forbids change) |
No |
No |
The only property that distinguishes God-under-Simplicity from the natural numbers is ax5 (necessary existence) — and this is precisely the property that mathematical Platonists attribute to mathematical structures as well [Plantinga, 1974]. ax5 alone, without the responsiveness provided by ax11b_A11bs \(G_c\), yields a God who necessarily exists but has no distinguishable relation to contingent reality.
In computational terms: a deadlocked process exists (it is running) but does nothing (it processes no input, produces no output, changes no state). A livelocked process is worse — it appears active but cycles through a finite set of states with no genuine novelty. Under Simplicity, God’s “activity” (creating, sustaining, being present) must all be identical to God’s essence, which is identical to God’s existence. There is no genuine doing distinguishable from being. This is structural deadlock.
4.4 The Classical Response: Analogical Predication#
The strongest response from the Simplicity tradition is the doctrine of analogical predication, developed most fully by Aquinas [Aquinas, n.d.]. The argument runs:
Human language about God (including “presence,” “sustaining,” and “dependence”) does not apply to God univocally (with the same meaning as when applied to creatures).
Nor does it apply equivocally (with entirely different meaning).
It applies analogically — bearing a structural resemblance that preserves some meaning while acknowledging that God’s mode of being is fundamentally different from creaturely being.
Under analogical predication, the formal parallels we draw between God-under-Simplicity and static systems are category errors: we are applying univocal predicates (immutability, lack of parts, non-responsiveness) to a being whose mode of being is not captured by any univocal predicate.
This response is coherent but unfalsifiable. If every formal property attributed to God is subject to analogical qualification, then no formal system can ever capture anything about God’s nature — the project of formal theology itself becomes impossible. This is a consistent position (classical apophatic theology embraces it), but it comes at a price: it means that ax8–ax10, as formal axioms with precise definitions, cannot apply to God either. If “presence” and “sustaining” are analogical, they are not the mereological presence and sustaining defined in the PET system.
The Simplicity defender therefore faces a dilemma:
Accept formal theology: Then ax8–ax10 have their formal meanings, and the deadlock argument applies.
Reject formal theology (analogical predication): Then ax8–ax10 lose their formal meanings, and the PET system as a whole cannot apply to God — but then the Simplicity doctrine itself, as a formal claim about God’s structure, also cannot apply.
In either case, Simplicity and relational theism cannot coexist within a single formal framework.
5. The Dipolar Resolution#
5.1 How Dipolarity Resolves the Deadlock#
Under ax11 (Dipolarity), God has a necessary aspect \(G_n\) and a contingent aspect \(G_c\). This structure resolves the deadlock directly:
\(G_c\) varies with the world (ax11, line 3), providing the structural basis for genuine responsiveness
th4 guarantees that distinct world-states produce distinguishably different divine experiences
ax8 (Presence) is grounded: God is present to each part of the world through \(G_c(w_i)\) for each subworld \(w_i\)
ax9 (Sustaining) is grounded: God’s sustaining is an ongoing relation enacted through the interaction of \(G_n\) (which provides the stable ground) and \(G_c\) (which tracks the world’s state)
ax10 (Asymmetric Dependence) is preserved: \(G_n\) exists necessarily and does not depend on the world; the world depends on \(G\) but \(G\) (specifically \(G_n\)) does not depend on \(W\)
5.2 The Self-Checking Mechanism#
The dipolar structure provides an additional property that has not, to our knowledge, been noted in the literature: it constitutes a non-circular self-checking mechanism.
The problem of recursive self-reference is familiar in logic and epistemology: who checks the checker? In the theological context: how does God distinguish between states of the world (or of the divine-world relationship) that are functioning well and those that are not? Under Simplicity, this question has no answer, because God has no internal differentiation by which to register any distinction.
Under Dipolarity, the answer is structural:
\(G_n\) is necessary and unchanging — it provides the fixed standard that cannot be corrupted by what it measures.
\(G_c\) is comprehensive (by ax8, God is present to every part of the world) — it provides the complete feedback channel that registers every state of the world.
\(G_n\) and \(G_c\) are united in one being (\(G = G_n \oplus G_c\)) but are genuinely distinct aspects (distinguishable by their modal status: \(G_n\) is necessary, \(G_c\) is contingent).
th4 guarantees that the feedback is injective: distinct world-states produce distinct divine experiences, so no information is lost.
This is not circular. \(G_n\) checking \(G_c\) is not the same as \(G\) checking \(G\), because the checking and the checked are modally distinct aspects. The standard (\(G_n\)) is immune to drift by necessity; the feedback (\(G_c\)) is comprehensive by ax8. No finite system can replicate this structure, because no finite system can guarantee that its standard-bearing component is necessary and incorruptible.
Formal analogy: In control theory, a comparator compares a reference signal against a measured signal and produces an error signal. The dipolar structure has the same architecture: \(G_n\) is the reference, \(G_c\) is the measurement, and the “comparison” is the inherent structural tension between them. We note that this analogy is pedagogical, not ontological — God is not a control system. But the structural parallel illuminates why Dipolarity provides a self-checking capacity that Simplicity lacks.
6. The Semantics of Nothing and the Problem of Evil#
6.1 The Paradox#
Consider the following sentences:
(α) “Nothing is more powerful than God.”
(β) “Nothing is more evil than the Devil.”
Sentence (α) is intended to affirm God’s supreme power: \(\neg\exists x\,(\text{MorePowerful}(x, G))\). Sentence (β) is intended to affirm the Devil’s supreme evil. But by a grammatical pivot — reading “nothing” as a referring expression rather than a quantifier — we obtain:
(γ) There exists an entity (“Nothing”) that is more powerful than God AND more evil than the Devil.
This is not merely a joke. It illustrates a structural property of natural language that has theological significance: the medium of divine-human communication is inherently vulnerable to silent meaning-inversion. The strongest possible affirmation can be read as the strongest possible denial without changing a single word.
6.2 Formal Resolution#
In first-order logic, the ambiguity is resolved by quantifier scope:
Here “nothing” is the negated existential quantifier \(\neg\exists x\), not a constant in the domain. The paradox cannot arise because “nothing” is not an entity that can bear predicates.
Within PET, the resolution is reinforced ontologically. ax5 (\(\Box\, \exists!\, G\)) means God exists in every possible world. There is no possible world in which “nothing” (in the absolute sense) obtains, because God is necessarily present. The strongest “nothing” PET permits is the absence of the contingent world (by ax6: \(\Diamond\,\neg\exists W\)), but even in a world without \(W\), God exists.
6.3 Connection to Evil as Privation#
The classical privatio boni tradition (Augustine [of Hippo, n.d.], [of Hippo, n.d.]) holds that evil is not a positive substance but an absence or privation of good. Within the PET framework, this receives a formal grounding:
Good (in PET) corresponds to the proper functioning of the God-world relationship: containment (ax1), presence (ax8), sustaining (ax9)
Evil (as privation) corresponds to the absence or failure of these relations — not as an active opposing force, but as a deficit
The connection to the “nothing” paradox is this: if evil is privation (absence of good), and “nothing” is the ultimate absence, then the linguistic paradox points to something structurally real — the most dangerous form of nothing is the nothing that hides inside affirmations. A relation that appears to hold (presence, sustaining) but has been silently emptied of content is more dangerous than an overtly absent relation, because the appearance masks the deficit.
Under Simplicity, this has a troubling implication. We argued in Section 4 that ax8–ax10 under Simplicity are either vacuous (present in name but empty of structural content) or contradictory. If they are vacuous, then the God-world relationship appears to hold (the axioms are stated) but is structurally empty. This is precisely the “nothing that hides inside affirmations” — the most dangerous form of privation.
Under Dipolarity, God’s \(G_c\) provides the structural content that fills these relations. The presence is not merely nominal; it is enacted through specific, world-indexed divine experiences (th4). The sustaining is not merely a label; it is grounded in the ongoing interaction of \(G_n\) and \(G_c\).
Implication for theodicy: The problem of evil, in this framework, is not “why does God permit evil?” but rather “how does evil operate?” — and the answer is: through privation, absence, and the silent emptying of relations that are supposed to be life-giving. This is not a solution to the theodicy problem (which would require the additional axioms ax15–ax25 of the PET innovation theodicy extension [Loewe, 2026]), but it is a formal characterization of evil’s mechanism that the Simplicity framework cannot accommodate.
7. Limitations and the Godelian Boundary#
7.1 The Map Is Not the Territory#
PET is a formal axiom system. It is a model of God, not God. This distinction is not a diplomatic hedge; it is structurally encoded in the axiom system itself:
ax2 (\(G \nleq W\)): God transcends the world
ax3 (\(\exists x\,(x \leq G \wedge \neg(x \leq W))\)): There is something in God beyond the world
Any formal system is a construction within \(W\). By ax2 and ax3, it therefore cannot capture all of \(G\). PET acknowledges its own incompleteness not as a concession but as a theorem of its own axioms.
Godel’s incompleteness theorems [Gödel, 1931] reinforce this point from a different direction: if PET is consistent and sufficiently expressive, it cannot prove its own consistency from within. This is not a defect but a confirmation of ax2–ax3: any model of God within the world is necessarily incomplete.
7.2 The Risk of Formalization#
Formalization carries its own risks. A formal system can create the illusion of precision where the underlying concepts are genuinely fuzzy. The mereological \(\leq\) relation may be too “spatial” to capture the God-world relationship [Loewe, 2026]. The modal operators may not adequately represent the relationship between eternity and time.
More importantly, the choice of axioms is itself a human act. The axioms were not derived from first principles; they were proposed based on a reading of the panentheistic tradition, then checked against six scriptural and philosophical traditions. The resulting convergence is striking (all 14 axioms receive support from all six traditions tested) but does not prove the axioms true. It demonstrates internal consistency across traditions, which is necessary but not sufficient for truth.
7.3 What This Paper Does and Does Not Achieve#
We have shown that, within the PET framework, Divine Simplicity generates a structural deadlock with the relational axioms. This is a formal result. Its theological significance depends on whether one accepts the PET framework’s formalization as a reasonable approximation of the God-world relationship.
If one accepts it: the result is a formal argument for Dipolarity over Simplicity.
If one rejects it: the result has no theological force — but the burden shifts to the critic to explain why the formalization is inadequate, and to provide an alternative formalization in which Simplicity and relational theism coexist.
If one rejects formal theology entirely (the analogical predication move): the result is irrelevant — but so is any formal claim about God’s nature, including the Simplicity doctrine itself insofar as it makes structural claims.
8. Conclusion#
We have presented a formal argument that Divine Simplicity, as axiomatized in the PET system’s ax11b, is structurally incompatible with the relational axioms ax8–ax10 that make God a living, relating being rather than a static abstract object. The argument identifies a specific structural mechanism: under Simplicity, God lacks the internal differentiation required to stand in genuine relations with a changing, contingent world. This renders the relational axioms either vacuous (present in name but empty of content) or contradictory (requiring change in a being that cannot change).
The dipolar alternative (ax11) resolves this deadlock by providing a necessary aspect (\(G_n\)) that serves as a fixed standard and a contingent aspect (\(G_c\)) that serves as a comprehensive, injective feedback channel. This structure also yields a non-circular self-checking mechanism and provides the formal grounding for the relational axioms that Simplicity cannot supply.
We have further argued that the connection between “nothingness” (as absence and privation) and the mechanism of evil receives formal expression within the dipolar framework — and that the structural emptying of relations under Simplicity is itself an instance of the “nothing that hides inside affirmations.”
These results are offered not as a refutation of Divine Simplicity tout court but as a precise identification of a structural problem that merits careful examination. The PET axiom system provides the formal tools for this examination. We invite critique of the axioms, the arguments, and the framework itself.
The axiom system is available for public review at balospe.com.
#AuditTheMath
References#
The following works informed the broader theological and philosophical context: [Clayton and Peacocke, 2004], [Cooper, 2006], [Hartshorne, 1941], [Hick, 1966], [Leibniz, 1710], [Moltmann, 1981], [Oppy, 2006], [Plantinga, 1974], [Sobel, 2004].
al-Ghazali, A. H. (n.d.). The Niche of Lights (Mishkat al-Anwar).
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718, doi:10.1037/h0093718
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.
Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., … Thomas, S. M. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057–1060. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/4551057a, doi:10.1038/4551057a
Benci, V., & Di Nasso, M. (2003). Numerosities of labelled sets: a new way of counting. Advances in Mathematics, 173(1), 50–67. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9, doi:10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9
Bernal, J. D. (1929). The World, the Flesh and the Devil: An Enquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (2016). Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Bezos, J. (2019). Going to Space to Benefit Earth.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Brower, J. E. (2008). Making sense of divine simplicity. Faith and Philosophy, 25(1), 3–30. URL: https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20082511, doi:10.5840/faithphil20082511
Caplan, Y., Stewart, N., Smittenaar, P., & Sgaier, S. K. (2020). Fighting COVID-19's disproportionate impact on black communities with more precise data. Stanford Social Innovation Review. URL: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fighting_covid-19s_disproportionate_impact_on_black_communities_with_more_precise_data
Clayton, P., & Peacocke, A. (Eds.) (2004). In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Cooper, J. W. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers — From Plato to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Ehlert, K., & Loewe, L. (2014). Lazy updating of hubs can enable more realistic models by speeding up stochastic simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(20), 204109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901114, doi:10.1063/1.4901114
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton.
Ferguson, N. M., Laydon, D., Nedjati-Gilani, G., Imai, N., Ainslie, K., Baguelin, M., … Ghani, A. C. (2020). Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giordano, G., Blanchini, F., Bruno, R., Colaneri, P., Di Filippo, A., Di Matteo, A., & Colaneri, M. (2020). Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy. Nature Medicine, 26(6), 855–860. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7, doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7
Gould, E., & Wilson, V. (2020). Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus—Racism and Economic Inequality.
Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692, doi:10.1007/BF01700692
Gödel, K. (1970). Ontological Proof.
Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 155–186. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201, doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201
Hare, B., & Woods, V. (2020). Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity. New York: Random House.
Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago/New York: Willett, Clark & Company.
Hartshorne, C. (1948). The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.
missing publisher in Hegel1812
Heschel, A. J. (1951). The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.
Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan.
Hindmarsh, A. C., Brown, P. N., Grant, K. E., Lee, S. L., Serban, R., Shumaker, D. E., & Woodward, C. S. (2005). SUNDIALS: suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 31(3), 363–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1089014.1089020, doi:10.1145/1089014.1089020
Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self scale: schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x, doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 115(772), 700–721. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1927.0118, doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0118
Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H., & Lipsitch, M. (2020). Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science, 368(6493), 860–868. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793, doi:10.1126/science.abb5793
Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531. URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/289019, doi:10.1086/289019
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Beck, C. M., Crittenden, B. S., & Sullivan, E. V. (Eds.). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Moral Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 23–92). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kripke, S. A. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94. URL: http://saulkripkecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Semantical-Considerations-on-Modal-Logic-PUBLIC.pdf
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
Lawvere, F. W. (1973). Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico e Fisico di Milano, 43, 135–166. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924844, doi:10.1007/BF02924844
missing publisher in Leibniz1710
Leveson, N. G. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0, doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0
Loewe, L. (2006). Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetical Research, 87(2), 133–159. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672306008123, doi:10.1017/S0016672306008123
Loewe, L., & EvoSysBio Group at UW-Madison (2015–2026). Prototype Evolvix: A Domain-Specific Language and Compiler to Simplify Accurate Mass-Action Modeling in Biology — Simulating Systems where Parts randomly meet to trigger Actions at defined Rates.
Lucanus, M. A. (n.d.). Pharsalia (De Bello Civili), Book I, line 81.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mallet, J. (2012). The struggle for existence: how the notion of carrying capacity, k, obscures the links between demography, Darwinian evolution, and speciation. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 14, 627–665. URL: https://mallet.oeb.harvard.edu/files/malletlab/files/mallet_the_struggle_2012_kindle.pdf
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281, doi:10.1037/h0023281
Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory. Naples: Bibliopolis.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346, doi:10.1037/h0054346
McCollum, J. M., Peterson, G. D., Cox, C. D., Simpson, M. L., & Samatova, N. F. (2006). The sorting direct method for stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with varying reaction execution behavior. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 30(1), 39–49. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007, doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Wright, D. (Ed.). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Meyerowitz-Katz, G., & Merone, L. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 101, 138–148. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464
Moltmann, J. (1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Mosley, T. J., Zajdel, R. A., Alderete, E., Clayton, J. A., Heidari, S., Pérez-Stable, E. J., … Bernard, M. A. (2025). Intersectionality and diversity, equity, and inclusion in the healthcare and scientific workforces. Lancet Regional Health — Americas, 41, 100973. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973, doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973
Mullins, R. T. (2013). Simply impossible: a case against divine simplicity. Journal of Reformed Theology, 7(2), 181–203. URL: https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-12341294, doi:10.1163/15697312-12341294
of Hippo, A. (n.d.). City of God (De Civitate Dei), Books XI–XII.
of Hippo, A. (n.d.). Confessions, Book VII.
Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ottati, V., Price, E., Wilson, C., & Sumaktoyo, N. (2015). When self-perceptions of expertise increase closed-minded cognition: the earned dogmatism effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 131–138. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. New York: Harper & Row.
Plantinga, A. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730, doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3 & 4), 379–423, 623–656. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x, doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sobel, J. H. (2004). Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stutt, R. O. J. H., Retkute, R., Bradley, M., Gilligan, C. A., & Colvin, J. (2020). A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with `lock-down' in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2238), 20200376. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376, doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0376
Talic, S., Shah, S., Wild, H., Gasevic, D., Maharaj, A., Ademi, Z., … Ilic, D. (2021). Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 375, e068302. URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068302, doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-068302
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779, doi:10.1037/a0023779
Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100, doi:10.1037/h0022100
Varzi, A. C. (2016). Mereology.
Wasserman, D., van der Gaag, R., & Wise, J. (2020). The term “physical distancing” is recommended rather than “social distancing” during the COVID-19 pandemic for reducing feelings of rejection among people with mental health problems. European Psychiatry, 63(1), e52. URL: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60, doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: Macmillan.
Wilde, R. (2018). Joseph Stalin's Death—He Did Not Escape the Consequences of His Actions.
Wink, W. (1984). Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Wintour, P. (2020). Covid-19 Will Devastate Poorest Nations if West Does Not Act, Warns UN: G20 Told to “Step Up Now or Pay Price Later”.
Wurth, R. C., Braxton, M. L., & Cohen, C. L. (2020). Racism and Covid-19 Threaten Our Health—We Can't Fight Them as Separate Battles.
Balospe.com (2026). Formal Foundation Test for the e7Day Axiom System.
Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Gregory of Nyssa (n.d.). Life of Moses (De Vita Moysis).
John of Ephesus, & Pearse, R. (543CE, 2017). John of Ephesus Describes the Justinianic Plague.
National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, & Health Resources and Services Administration (2014). Sex, Race, and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Health Occupations (2010–2012). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-1: The PET Model — A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.
Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-2: The e7Day Axiom System — Towards a Formal Framework for Self-Correcting Construction.
Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). The PET Model: A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.