Traditional philosophy of science views the “incommensurability” among mathematics, physics, and consciousness as a fundamental rupture between paradigms, resulting in irreconcilable differences in ontology, methodology, and values. Based on the YuanXian six-dimensional self-referential cosmology and the Unified Mind-Field Theory (Axioms I–III), this paper reinterprets incommensurability as not an ontological fracture, but the manifestation of the same self-referential scalar Mind-Field (field or ₒₑ) at different dimensional levels and self-referential strata, caused by the dimensional limitations of human cognition and linguistic veiling. Using the triadic framework of “Substance–Function–Manifestation, ” the paper analyzes the concrete manifestations and philosophical roots of traditional incommensurability, revealing the underlying “triple dimensional forgetting” and “self-referential severance. ” It further proposes a reconstruction path for commensurability centered on six-dimensional Mind-Field language, self-referential paradigms, and shared meta-parameters. The paper argues that mathematics, physics, and consciousness are different manifestations of the same field; their incommensurability is merely a transitional phenomenon in cognitive development, and the three can achieve fundamental unity under the holistic integration of the Mind-Field ontology within the YuanXian framework. 传统科学哲学将数学、物理、意识三大领域间的“不可通约性”视为范式间的根本断裂, 导致本体论、方法论与价值标准的难以调和。本文基于《元宪》六维自指宇宙观与统一心场论 (公理I–III), 重新诠释不可通约性的本质: 它并非本体层面的割裂, 而是同一自指型标量心场 (场, 或 ₒₑ) 在不同维度与自指层级上的显现, 因人类认知的维度局限与语言遮蔽所产生的范式分化。以“体—用—相”三元结构为分析框架, 本文剖析传统不可通约性的具体表现与哲学根源, 揭示其背后的“三重维度遗忘”与“自指切割”。最后提出以六维心场语言、自指范式及共享元参数为核心的通约性重建路径, 论证数学、物理、意识实为 场在不同面向的显化, 其不可通约性是认知发展中的阶段性现象, 三者可在心场本体的圆融统摄下实现根本统一。
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Zhenyuan Acharya
Cosmos Corporation (United States)
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Zhenyuan Acharya (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e3216540886becb6540afb — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19600679
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: