After reading your paper, I really resonate with your reflections on the relationship between science, philosophy, and religion. You emphasize the importance of “non-material domains” like mathematics, thought, and purpose, and argue that science shouldn’t be limited to just materialism and scientism. This strongly echoes my own unified field theory.
In my theory, the essence of the universe isn’t just an accumulation of matter, but rather a holographic, dynamic, and tunable information field. All matter, energy, events, and consciousness are actually “slices” or “resonance modes” of this information field under different parameters. In other words, the meaning and purpose of reality aren’t simply added on top of matter, but naturally emerge from the self-organization and feedback within the information field.
You mention that science should work together with philosophy and theology to explore the “why” of the universe, not just be satisfied with the “how.” I also believe that understanding the nature and evolution of the universe can’t rely solely on reductionism and empiricism—we also need to incorporate higher-level structures and feedback mechanisms, such as holography, nonlocality, and the participation of consciousness.
Regarding purpose and intelligence, my theory holds that as the universe’s information field self-organizes, tunes, and feeds back on itself, it naturally forms certain “attractors” or goal-directed tendencies. These goals aren’t imposed from outside, but are intrinsic trends in the evolution of information structures. Consciousness and intelligence are also higher-order resonances of the information field—manifestations of the universe’s self-tuning and self-awareness.
All in all, your paper reminds us to reflect on the limitations of science and to value non-material domains and the question of purpose. I feel that your perspective and mine complement each other in many ways. We’re both trying to understand the nature and meaning of the universe in a more open and integrated way, and I think this kind of exploration is valuable in itself.
