All history is driven by archetypes and rooted in them...
Once this is said,the fact that there exist a mother achetype and a father archetype does not means that all physics could be reduced to these underlying archetypes.. ( we can easily class everything in yin and yang that does not means that physics is yin or yang )
In my own thinking as an exemple, we have three sides: the materialistic social tribal and now robotic ego,& the daimonic (Plato)"possessed" "inspired" isolated ego, but also the free thinking "I" which result & manifest as a balance & controls between the other two sides. History describe the emergence of this third Christic component.
As you see instead of using your feminine and masculine polarities, i use three symbolic forms or achetypes : the material (feminine) the mind (masculine) the transcendent "i"...
My reading is as much good or as much bad as yours...
Instead of a feminine physics , why not a physics integrating the two polarities in a higher dimension ?
A Goethean physics as described by Henri Bortoft in two books ...
If i consult A.I. dont doubt he will obey my prompting biases and confirming my perspective as it did with your schematics...
A.I. is not truth... It is a confirming biases tool so useful it could be it dont think ....
There is plenty of people saying A.I. helped them and confirmed their view right now...
If i prompt A.I. about my view as i just described to you i can also wrote a physics description ( encompassing biology and psychology ) as good as your own with my three perspectives archetypes of the "ego " instead of yin yang or feminine /masculine ...
In my physics perspectives the observer must be himself transformed in the act of observation.He then cannot observe a feminine or a masculine physics out of himself.
In a word you are "not even wrong".
It can be helpful for you to contrast a feminine physics with a masculine physics but i doubt that it will be productive... It was already done long ago by the way ...I read the "tao of Physics" by Capra 50 years ago , he contrasted newtonian physics (masculine ) with Quantum physics (feminine ) and all your description correspond to his own...
i prefer Goethe who goes deeper ....
The great thinker Gilbert Durand classified all imaginative archetypes...(" Structure anthropologique de l’imagination " a total masterpiece translated in English which i read 55 years ago, i recommend it to you and be assured this book is not obsolete )
The imaginative cosmos is a tree with three main branches with one branch which is double ( the three musketeers are 4 ) ... Then not just a feminine/masculine simpler classification ... Our bodies male or female support the same workings functions and are complementary not opposite...
Jean Gebser i recommended to you described in his 600 pages book how consciousness is transformed by evolution/history dynamically. he does not use a simplistic binary classification... You decided without reading it that his book was obsolete ... Ask A.I. if his book is obsolete and why ?
