A QUESTION OF VALIDITY

In both cases, the two paradigms represent general belief systems rooted in preconceived notions about reality. Which paradigm is more valid in a scientific sense cannot be answered because both paradigms are rooted in preconceived notions regarding the hidden origin of creation.

The only way to answer the question of validity would be to make two different assumptions regarding the nature of the unified field and then follow their logical consequences to develop two different types of theory. This would have more than just philosophical implications. The two opposing assumptions regarding the nature of the field would impact directly the type of models that could be used to represent its behavior.

For example, if we assume that the unified field possesses an insentient form of objective existence, then its elementary constituents would have to be modeled on analogy to insentient objects, such as vibrating strings, which are characterized by mechanical action and are governed by local laws of cause and effect. If, on the other hand, we assume that the unified field possesses a sentient form of subjective existence, then its elementary constituents would have to be modeled on analogy to sentient subjects, such as vibrating minds, which are characterized by self-conception and governed by free will.

In principle, a self-consistent theory could be developed on the basis of either assumption. Mere self-consistency, however, is not enough. To be considered a valid form of scientific knowledge, the theory must also be consistent with the empirical facts so that it can be used to predict the facts accurately. No matter what its starting assumptions might be, if one theory provides predictions that are more accurate and larger in scope than the other, then it would have to be accepted as a more valid form of scientific knowledge.

In this sense, we stand at a critical point in history. We now have the potential to develop two different theories of the unified field, each rooted in one of the opposite assumptions outlined above. This would allow us to test the objective and subjective paradigms. Whichever theory wins will likely determine the course of human thought for thousands of years to come. The question at stake is whether human society will continue to operate on the basis of the objective paradigm, which dominates modern civilization, or will revert to the ancient subjective paradigm that dominated the earliest civilizations on earth.