New Paradigm Science

New Paradigm Science is the core domain of the Laszlo Institute. It is dedicated to exploring integral, transdisciplinary, and what we call “holotropic” (coherence and wholeness oriented) explanatory frameworks of phenomena and events. Explorations in New Paradigm Science invite both theoretical analyses relating to the principles and constructs of emerging epistemological considerations, as well as presentation of explorations and practical applications that foster new perspectives on ontological engagements.

QUANTUM PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY

The sub-domain of Quantum Physics and Quantum Biology explores the phenomenon of entanglement and mutual cuasality in the physical and life sciences.

FIELD-BASED PHYSICS

The change of paradigm brought about by exploration of the quantum domain has pushed the edges of the paradigm of originally framed as quantum mechanics. The sub-domain of Field-Based Physics explores both the mounting experimental evidence for the dematerialization the world while also formulating novel theoretical frameworks that account for the observed dynamics of consonance.

White Paper for the Symposium on New Paradigm in Politics

Current Research Projects

Extending Quantum-like framework of decision making to group decision making, organization behaviors, or social networking.

LINPR Research Project Summary
By Dr. Sudip Patra
August 2022

1. Extending Quantum-like framework of decision making to group decision making, organization behaviors, or social networking. In this area objective would be to continue ongoing collaborations, and align them to the overall values and objectives of new paradigm research at the institute.

2. Developing on relations between complex adaptive systems and quantum-like framework, for example in complexity economics it has been observed that deep uncertainty in economy plays a fundamental role in evolution of economies, but quantum-like framework might provide a concrete language of describing such ontological uncertainty.

3. Developing frameworks or models for policy decision making based on quantum-like approaches for decision making. Here the objective would be to continue on current projects, for example with existing PhD scholars whom I am mentoring. Collaborating with the Laszlo Institute would help significantly since we would be able to team up with policy thinkers in this regard. Currently one-project deals with developing a human-AI algorithm based on quantum-like approach (with one of my PhD students).

4. Developing further on the Quantum foundations works with other Scientists, but also to develop holistic philosophical thinking that would align quantum science with complex adaptive world we are inheriting. For example, a frontier research objective in foundations is quantum and chaos. Relational quantum theory is another frontier field opening up. What such new frameworks may offer for worldviews in this age of information and complexity?

PROJECT UPDATES

Current research works
Dr. Sudip Patra
Updates: Feb. 2023

“Currently I am involved in three main directions of research. I have provided below highlights from my latest publications.”

1. Quantum foundations: there has been a vast and deep literature on how possibly the so-called classical world, with definite results, might have emerged from an inherent quantum world of ontological indefiniteness. De-coherence theory and the more modern version of quantum Darwinism has been one more highlighted stream of work. However, de-coherence theory does not solve in literal sense, the notorious measurement problem in quantum mechanics, also the exact process of emergence of a specific basis in which measurement is possible, is still less understood. Hence, with Stuart Kauffman (Stuart Kauffman – Wikipedia) I have proposed an ontological framework of emergence of classical world from inherently quantum world, based on quantum-Zeno dynamics and its trade-off with atmospheric de-coherence, we propose some testable experiments. The full text can be accessed here: Entropy | Free Full-Text | A Testable Theory for the Emergence of the Classical World (mdpi.com).

Role of mind has been underplayed, or at best thought as to be an epiphenomenon, in the course of modern science. Very recently though the possibility of mind-matter interaction, or the possible relations between quantum physics and consciousness, is again revisited. Earlier since von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, there were speculations on whether consciousness might have any role to resolve measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Very recently in cognitive experiments, it has been demonstrated that mental states can violate, and even surpass Tsirelson non-locality bound of quantum mechanics. Does that imply that mind can be outside physical space-time? Is non-locality fundamental? With Stuart Kauffman I explore these pressing issues in this working paper: OSF Preprints | Human Cognition Surpasses the Nonlocality Tsirelson Bound: Is Mind Outside of Spacetime?

Is reality quantum-like? This question is an alternative exploration to different dualists and monists views of nature. Principle of Contextuality-complementarity, Uncertainty and Non-locality seems to be fundamental and general. With Menas Kafatos (Menas Kafatos – Wikipedia) I am exploring a new framework of reality or works are soon to be published.

2. Quantum-like modelling literature in cognition or decision-making has emerged strongly. However, there are still intriguing philosophical and interpretational problems, since a full-fledged use of quantum physics for cognition might not be warranted. With Partha Ghose Partha Ghose – Wikipedia, I have proposed a more pragmatic philosophical and mathematical framework for decision-making based on Hilbert space modelling. Our works can be found here: .

3. At CEASP research centre, OP Jindal Global University, India, where I am based, I am working with PhD scholars on applying quantum-like framework (as built above) in different areas of social sciences: economics, finance and public policy decision making. At CEASP, we are eager to collaborate with scholars across countries.

Anomalies as Gateways: An Integrative Framework for Navigating Paradigm Shifts

LINPR Research Project Summary
By Angelo Luidens
2025

Objectives and Expected Outcomes

A paradigm shift asks more of us than arriving at a new set of ideas. It asks us to cross a threshold — to move from one way of making sense of reality to another, while the ground between the two is still forming. This project is concerned with that crossing, emerging from a central question: How do we coherently map and facilitate the paradigm shift we collectively advocate?

The objective is to develop a “Paradigm Navigation Framework” – a transdisciplinary lens for understanding how paradigm shifts unfold. The framework will:

Surface the stress points – identifying persistent scientific anomalies as signals of systemic strain within the materialist paradigm.
Recontextualize through a new lens – showing how these anomalies become coherent when viewed through consciousness-centric models, such as the Akashic field.
Map the passage itself – modeling the phase transition where old structures dissolve, coherence fragments, and new patterns crystallize.

What This Will Produce:

Scholarly Framework – a formalized “Paradigm Navigation Framework”article for World Futures.
Applied Case Studies – analysis of 2-3 key anomalies (e.g., non-locality in quantum physics, placebo/nocebo efficacy) as practical exemplars.
Umbrella Project Integration – thematic analysis showing how disparate Institute research areas (Science, Medicine, Business, Education) contribute to the larger paradigm puzzle, offering narrative cohesion.
Community Tool – a distilled version of the framework to stimulate and structure monthly community dialogues.

Research Hypothesis and Guiding Questions

A paradigm shift is a systemic phase transition in collective consciousness – observable through the structured integration of anomalies. This process can be mapped and facilitated using a transdisciplinary framework that honors phenomenological, comparative, and historical levels of analysis, much like the layers of the Iceberg Model.

The shift is not random. It has a discernible structure. If we learn to read it – tracing anomalies through the patterns they reveal and the worldviews they challenge – we gain the capacity not only to understand the shift, but to navigate it with purpose.

Guiding Questions:

Identification – What distinguishes a genuinely paradigm-challenging anomaly from a puzzle the existing system can still absorb?
Integration – How do diverse New Paradigm domains each offer complementary explanations for these anomalies?
Transition – What recognizable stages – from anomaly recognition to worldview restructuring – characterize a paradigm shift, and what can liminality and emergence teach us about this passage?
Narrative – How can this framework synthesize the Institute’s projects into a unified “Umbrella” narrative of conscious evolution?

Theoretical Framework

Four converging traditions ground this project:

Consciousness-Centric Ontology – the premise that consciousness is the ground of reality, not a byproduct of matter, aligning with the Akashic field.
Complex Systems Science – modeling paradigms as stable states and shifts as phase transitions, where small perturbations cascade into reorganization.
The Systems Thinking Iceber Model – moving beyond surface events to uncover the patterns, structures, and mental models that generate them. Applied here to trace anomalies to the worldviews they destabilize.
New Paradigm Science – engaging with the Institute’s work on liminality, patterning, and coherence as the dynamics of transformation.

Together, these create a distinctive integrative theory: the consciousness field (Laszlo) undergoing a phase transition (Complex Systems) mediated by liminal coherence (New Paradigm Science).

Research Methodology

The research follows a transdisciplinary, three-phase methodology:
Phase 1 — Foundation: Listening to the Anomalies
A systematic literature review catalogs persistent scientific anomalies, applying Complex Systems criteria to distinguish genuine paradigm challenges from resolvable puzzles.
Output: a prioritized anomaly catalog mapped to the materialist assumptions they strain.

Phase 2 — Integration: Building the Framework
Consciousness-centric models are bridged with anomaly data through theoretical synthesis, while the Iceberg Model maps systemic layers of paradigm clashes — from observable events through patterns to the mental models at stake.
Output: a draft “Paradigm Navigation Framework” and 2-3 case study manuscripts.

Phase 3 — Synthesis and Community Engagement
The framework is applied to active LINPR research projects through thematic analysis, with iterative refinement in monthly community meetings.
Output: “Connecting LINPR Research Through the Paradigm Shift Lens” report and a facilitated dialogue session.

Potential Impact

For the Laszlo Institute:

A shared analytical lens that deepens collaborative capacity – revealing how diverse contributions fit together.
A thematic integration tool for the Umbrella Project, strengthening internal coherence and external communication.
Publishable scholarship advancing the core mission of New Paradigm Science.

For the Broader Landscape

A rigorous response to how paradigm change actually happens – moving beyond critique into actionable process.
A model of academic praxis that is both intellectually rigorous and consciously engaged.
Practical implications for New Paradigm Education (paradigm flexibility) and Policy (managing societal transitions with wisdom).

Honest Boundaries

Case selection scope. Examining 2-3 anomalies allows depth but not full spectrum coverage. Subsequent cycles will test the framework more broadly.
Transdisciplinary tradeoff. The contribution is integration across domains, not exhaustive specialist treatment within any one.
Ontological starting point. Reception beyond the New Paradigm community will depend on the quality of the bridge this consciousness-centric framework builds.
Theoretical, not yet empirical. Whether the framework can demonstrably facilitate paradigm shift processes is a question for future applied research.
Community as co-creator. The synthesis phase depends on active LINPR participation; the framework will be shaped by the engagement it receives.

Project Summary

This is an internal initiative – born from within the Institute’s ongoing inquiry. The “Paradigm Navigation Framework” gives the community’s shared question a shared structure: a coherent map for understanding how the paradigm shift we collectively study actually unfolds. By turning attention to the transition itself, this project offers both a scholarly contribution to New Paradigm Science and a practical tool for the LINPR community to consciously co-create the paradigm it is dedicated to realizing.

Research Project Status Update

Anomalies as Gateways: An Integrative Framework for Navigating Paradigm Shifts.

LINPR Research Project Summary – Updates
By Angelo Luidens
13 June 2026

A paradigm shift asks more of us than arriving at a new set of ideas; it asks us to cross a threshold while the ground between two ways of making sense of reality is still forming. This overview introduces the Paradigm Navigation Framework – a transdisciplinary lens that surfaces persistent anomalies as signals of systemic strain, re-contextualises them through consciousness-centric and complex-systems models, and maps the passage itself.
It sketches the three-phase method, the converging theoretical traditions, and the framework’s central methodological commitment: that what counts as legitimate evidence is itself paradigm-bound. It closes with an invitation to the LINPRR community to refine the framework through engagement.

1 - The Crossing

Every renewal movement can say the old worldview is failing. Far fewer can say how to cross to the new one – while the bridge is still being built. That crossing is what this project is about. It emerges from one question: how do we map and accompany the paradigm shift we collectively study?
The word accompany is deliberate. A paradigm shift is not only a change of conclusions; it is a passage through a liminal space in which old structures dissolve, coherence fragments, and new patterns crystallise. We have no shortage of critique of the dominant paradigm. What we lack is a usable map of the passage itself – and a posture for moving through it with purpose rather than being carried by it.

2 - What the framework produces

The objective is a Paradigm Navigation Framework that does three things

Surfaces the stress points – identifying persistent anomalies as signals of systemic strain within the dominant (materialist) paradigm, while acknowledging that other paradigms carry their own stress points.
Re contextualises through a new lens – showing how such anomalies become coherent when read through consciousness-centric models and the framework’s operational toolkits.
Maps the passage – modelling the transition where old structures dissolve and new patterns form

3 - The three phase method

Phase 1 – Listening to the anomalies. A receptive inquiry catalogues persistent anomalies, drawing on multiple documentation regimes – peer-reviewed literature for materialist-coded anomalies, first-person and tradition-internal records for phenomenological and contemplative ones, original correspondence for historical disputes. A discrimination step then distinguishes genuine paradigm-challenging anomalies both from ordinary puzzles the system can absorb and from reframes that merely wear paradigm-shift rhetoric.

Phase 2 – Building the framework. Anomaly data is bridged with consciousness-centric models through theoretical synthesis. The Systems Thinking Iceberg Model maps each clash across its layers – from observ- able events, through patterns and structures, to the mental models and narratives at stake.

Phase 3 – Synthesis and community engagement. The framework is applied to active research through the- matic analysis and refined in community dialogue, with a co-primary output channel that lets phenomenological testimony live natively in non-materialist regimes rather than as a supplement to materialist documentation.

4 - Five converging traditions

The framework is grounded in five traditions held as distinct but converging: a consciousness centric ontology (consciousness as ground, not by-product); Complex Systems Science (paradigms as stable states, shifts as phase transitions); the Iceberg Model (tracing surface events down to the worldviews that generate them); New Paradigm Science (liminality, patterning, coherence); and HEAL (a somatic-phenomenological method for staying present in the in-between). Each is engaged on its own terms; none is collapsed into the others.

5 - The methodological commitment

The framework’s distinctive claim is meta-epistemological: what counts as legitimate evidence is itself paradigm bound. Each documentation regime – materialist-scientific, phenomenological, contemplative- practitioner, indigenous-oral, legal, embodied/craft – has its own primary sources and its own verification methodology, and a claim verified within a regime by that regime’s method is verified within that regime. When an anomaly is independently documented across several regimes, that convergence is meta evidence stronger than any single regime’s – because it is harder to explain away by any one regime’s preferred reduction. This is pluralism with explicit criteria, not relativism – and it carries a discipline that keeps it honest: the framework also names what it rejects. A candidate that merely re-reads agreed-upon data (a reframe), or that stresses no load bearing assumption of the dominant paradigm, is screened out rather than catalogued. The capacity to say clearly what is not an anomaly is what distinguishes methodological pluralism from “anything counts.”

6 - Honest boundaries

Scope. The current catalogue targets anomalies that stress the materialist paradigm specifically – a deliberate scope decision, not a claim that materialism is the only paradigm with anomalies.
Asymmetry. Regimes are not equal in power: a dominant regime can render other regimes’ anomalies invisible, so surfacing them may require consciously bracketing the dominant frame. The framework names this – and acknowledges that it is itself written largely in the dominant academic register.
A premise, not a proven fact. The consciousness-centric ontology (consciousness as ground) is the framework’s home-regime premise, offered as such – not asserted as established fact. Readers from other regimes are invited to engage the framework’s claims through their own verification methodology without first adopting it.
Not yet operationalised. Whether the framework can demonstrably accompany a shift is a question for applied work.
Community as co creator. The synthesis depends on engagement; the framework will be shaped by the responses it receives.

7 - An invitation

This is an internal initiative – born from within the Institute’s own inquiry – offered to the community as a shared structure for a shared question. It is presented to invite refinement, not as a finished object. The most useful next step is dialogue: where does the map hold, where does it mislead, and which anomalies – in which regimes – belong in the catalogue?

The framework is built to be applied to active LINPRR research projects – to be identified together with the community – and researchers are invited to map their own projects onto it. To contribute a candidate: run it through the criteria in the Working Reference (Piece 2), declare its documentation regime and classify its load- bearing claims, then bring it – including a reasoned rejection – to the monthly community dialogue.

Selected references

Laszlo, E. Science and the Akashic Field. 2nd ed., 2007.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1962.
Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. 1990 – the systems-thinking iceberg (extended here to six layers).
Stargue. Stargue Epistemological Framework (v1.2, 2026) – claim-classification taxonomy and evidence hierarchy.
HEAL reference materials (Monsanto, Petruse & Luidens) – e-state methodology

Part of the Anomalies as Gateways series of short communications for the LINPRR community (1 framework overview · 2 working reference · 3 discrimination test · 4 epistemic-pluralism gateway · 5 worked application). The inclusion criteria, documentation regimes, Iceberg Model, HEAL, and evidence standards invoked across the series are defined in the companion Working Reference (Piece 2)