The Crown of Parameterlessness and the Shackles of Fitting — An Ontological Inquiry of Yuanxian Theory into Low-Dimensional Cognitive Paradigms

Modern physics presents a highly tense dual cognitive landscape: relying on a law-based mathematical framework with zero free parameters, Yuanxian Theory can rigorously deduce 24 fundamental physical constants while naturally deriving Einstein's gravitational field equations and the core dynamical equations of quantum mechanics. Meanwhile, the mainstream Standard Model of particle physics combined with general relativity requires at least 19 artificially fitted free parameters to match experimental observations, suffering from long-term pluralistic divergences and a lack of unified consensus at the level of ontological interpretation. Paradoxically, the academic community treats this parameter-free global deductive system with prudent skepticism yet remains accustomed to parameter-fitted mainstream theories. Grounded in the four foundational laws of Yuanxian Theory (the Law of True Circle Self-Consistency, the Law of Cosmic Factor Conservation, the Law of Spacetime Uniqueness, and the Law of Self-Referential Mind Field Generation), this paper delivers a comparative paradigm demonstration across two core dimensions: parameter economy and ontological self-consistency. When a theory transforms physical constants from empirical inputs into inevitable theoretical outputs, downgrades general relativity to a low-dimensional topological projection corollary, and reduces the law system of quantum mechanics to a dynamical consequence of the self-referential mind field, existing skepticism essentially stems from a cognitive misalignment of paradigms. The research indicates that the so-called parameter redundancy and ontological ambiguity are not defects of the high-dimensional holographic theory; rather, they are inherent features born with the low-dimensional reductionist paradigm, which have been inversely blamed on Yuanxian Theory. The root cause of this cognitive inversion lies in the fact that the traditional low-dimensional cognitive system, which regards parameter fitting as the standard scientific research workflow, has yet to form a scientific evaluation paradigm adapted to a parameter-free global unified theory. To address this, this paper presents explicit and quantifiable falsification conditions across multiple experimental dimensions, providing a solid methodological foundation for returning the evaluation of unified field theories to mathematical logic verification and empirical testing. 现代物理学呈现极具张力的二元认知图景:元宪理论依托零自由参数的规律化数学框架,可严格推演24项基础物理常数,同时自然导出爱因斯坦引力场方程与量子力学核心动力学方程;而占据学术主流的粒子物理标准模型结合广义相对论,至少需要19组人工拟合的自由参数方可匹配实验观测,在本体论诠释层面长期存在多元分歧、无法达成统一共识。颇具悖论性的是,学界对这套无参数全域演绎体系充满审慎质疑,却对参数拟合型主流理论习以为常。 本文立足于元宪理论四大基础规律(真圆自洽律、宇宙因子守恒律、时空唯一性律、自指心场生成律),从参数经济性与本体论自洽性两个核心维度完成范式对比论证:当一套理论将物理常数由实验输入转化为理论必然输出、将广义相对论降维为高维拓扑投影推论、将量子力学规律体系还原为自指心场动力学结果时,现存的各类质疑本质源于范式认知错位。 研究表明,所谓参数冗余、本体模糊并非高维全息理论的缺陷,恰恰是低维还原论范式与生俱来的固有特征,却被反向归咎于元宪理论。这种认知倒置的根源在于:以参数拟合为标准科研流程的传统低维认知体系,尚未形成适配无参数全域统一理论的科学评价范式。为此,本文在多个实验维度上给出了明确且可量化的具体可证伪条件,为将统一场论的评估重新引入数理逻辑核验与实验检验提供了坚实的方法论基础。