Subjective and Objective Paradigms
A paradigm is a general way of thinking about things, which is based upon our beliefs about life, the universe, and everything. In the same way that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, so also, truth lies in the mind of the knower. What one person believes to be true, might be different from what another person believes to be true, because the two people operate on the basis of different paradigms or belief systems. In this regard, the history of human thought has largely been guided by two mutually opposed paradigms, which can be called the modern objective paradigm and the ancient subjective paradigm.
The modern objective paradigm lies at the basis of modern objective science. According to this paradigm, everything that exists, including all forms of consciousness and intelligence, have their ultimate basis in insentient, non-conscious, and non-intelligent fields of force and matter, which operate mechanically on the basis of local cause and effect. In modern scientific language, the unity of these fields is called the unified field. From this objective perspective, consciousness and intelligence must be viewed as the bi-products of complex interactions of force and matter in the brains and nervous systems of biological organisms. There is no notion in modern objective science that consciousness and intelligence are fundamental features of nature.
The ancient subjective paradigm, on the other hand, provided the basis for ancient spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions around the world. According to this paradigm, everything that exists, including all forms of force and matter, have their ultimate basis in sentient and intelligent fields of consciousness, which operate non-mechanically on the basis of non-local self-conception and free will choice. In many traditions these self-conscious fields were called the gods, and the unity of these fields was called God. Here we have two mutually opposed conceptions of the ”unified field’, one of which is rooted in the modern objective paradigm, while the other is rooted in the ancient subjective paradigm, where the unified field is called God.
Principles of Existence
In actual fact, the unified field and its elementary constituents cannot be empirically observed. It represent an empirically hidden field, about which we have virtually no direct empirical data. Modern objective science was founded on the premise that the objects of scientific inquiry should be empirically observable and measurable. The unified field is neither. Nevertheless, it has become the most important object of scientific inquiry in our modern age, with legions of theorists seeking a new unified theory. The modern scientific search for a unified theory is not based upon any new empirical data. Rather, it is based upon pure aesthetics”the innate desire of the human mind to seek wholeness and unity in its understanding of nature.
To fulfill that desire the existence of the unified field must be posited as a matter of belief, as one might posit an axiom in a theory of pure mathematics or geometry. If the field doesn’t exist, then why should we study it? It follows that a general principle of existence, which simply asserts that the unified field exists, must be the first and foremost principle adopted by any prospective unified theory. But such a principle is not enough. One must also posit the type of existence that the unified field possesses. There are two basic possibilities, which are related to the two paradigms that serve to guide human thought.
1.The Principle of Objective Existence. Based upon the modern objective paradigm, one can assume that the unified field possesses an insentient and unconscious form of objective existence. In this case, its elementary constituents can be modeled by analogy with ”insentient objects’, such as vibrating strings or membranes, which operate mechanically on the basis of local cause and effect.
2.The Principle of Subjective Existence. Based upon the ancient subjective paradigm, one can assume that the unified field possesses a sentient and conscious form of subjective existence. In this case, its elementary constituents can be modeled by analogy with ”sentient subjects’, such as vibrating minds, which operate non-mechanically on the basis of non-local self-conception and free will choice.
In both cases, these are a priori assumptions for which no ”proof’ can be offered in advance. Like axioms in theories of pure mathematics or geometry, they must be either accepted or rejected as a matter of intuition or belief. Those who put faith in the modern objective paradigm will have a tendency to adopt the objective principle, while those who put faith in the ancient subjective paradigm will have a tendency to adopt the subjective principle. The principle that is adopted will then determine the type of models that can be used to represent the field and its behavior.
A Question of Scientific Validity
In principle, a logically self-consistent theory of the unified field could be developed on the basis of either paradigm. But mere logical self-consistency is not enough to determine the scientific validity of such a theory. It may be enough to determine the validity of a theory in pure mathematics or geometry, where the theorems merely need to be consistent with the starting axioms, but it is not enough for a genuine scientific theory. To be considered valid in a scientific sense, the theory must provide accurate empirical predictions.
At this point in history we are faced with an enormous intellectual challenge, the outcome of which is likely to affect the course of human thought for thousands of years to come. This challenge involves formulating a unified theory of the universe and everything in it, a challenge that is often compared to the ”holy grail’ of modern science.
The question is: how should we approach this challenge? Should we approach it on the basis of the modern objective paradigm, which has been around for a few hundred years, or the ancient subjective paradigm, which has been around for thousands of years”since the very dawn of human civilization of culture on earth? Given the fact that legions of theorists are already exploring unified theories rooted in the objective paradigm, it behooves us to take the road less traveled and explore the possibility of developing a unified theory rooted in the subjective paradigm. In the event that such a subjective theory is developed, along with competing objective theories, then there will be a general criterion for determining which theory is more valid.
The theory that provides the most accurate predictions, covering the largest range of empirical phenomena, will have to be deemed more scientifically valid than its competitors, no matter what its starting assumptions and models might be. In the event that the subjective theory ”wins’ this intellectual competition, then it is highly likely that the ancient subjective paradigm will once again become the conventional paradigm, as it was in ancient times. The implications for the future course of human thought are inestimable.
The position adopted here is that intelligent design can be found everywhere, in the elegant mathematical equations of physics, in the organization of the Cosmos as a whole, in the beautiful patterns of a snowflake, in the crystalline structures of matter, in the marvelous ecological systems of nature, and in the cells and bodies of biological organisms. It is not just found in the evolution or creation of biological organisms, it is found in the evolution or creation of the universe as a whole. To develop a genuine and comprehensive theory of intelligent design, we need a new theory in physics, a new theory of the unified field, which borders on metaphysics.
I am currently in the process of preparing a series of position papers on such a theory, dubbed transcendental mechanics, or TM-theory, which need a proper home. It is doubtful that they will be accepted in any conventional physics journal due to their unconventional nature, tied to intelligent design. So I have decided to publish the papers online. If you would like to provide a site to host these papers, let me know.
Edited by angiras, : To shorten the OP.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
Edited by angiras, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2