The possibility of a coherent verifiable theory

Some readers, kind enough to be enthusiastic, do see it as a possible picture, a helpful and poetic picture. Their enthusiasm is, of course, positive. But it is still a far cry from thinking or acknowledging that it might be true, to seeing that this picture actually is true. If it is poetically satisfying, one can be inspired by it. It can help people to think about architecture in a more constructive way. But, if the theory were actually true, if our picture of the nature of space and time requires modification to include the I, and if such a modification of our physical picture ultimately turned out to be a real feature of the universe, then that would be a discovery, an intellectual waking up of a very different order — something vast in its implications.

When thinking as a scientist, it must of course be this question of truth which occupies one’s mind. It is for this reason that I have kept records, and written down my observations, for the last thirty years, as carefully as possible. As a result of my observations, and as a result of my experiences in the field — as an architect building buildings, as a craftsman making things, as a planner laying out buildings and precincts and seeing them come to life — I have gradually become convinced that this theory, or at least something very much like it, is indeed likely to be true. In short, as a scientist, I have gradually come to the belief that the I must be real. And as a architect, I have also become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings, and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.

(Page 136)