1. Fundamental science

1.1. Fundamental truth

There is only one truth in fundamental science: the way nature works.

Nature works in only one certain way, enshrined in natural laws. One who investigates the way nature really works will be rewarded with their findings being replicated in a controlled environment and eventually being applied to daily life. In this way, taxpayers will have a Return on Investment in their funding of science.

In this document, I propose a fundamental — scientific — approach towards a profound understanding of natural intelligence and natural language — based on the way nature works.

1.2. Fundamental choice

Since there are at least two belief systems claiming to hold the origin of intelligence, we need to make a fundamental choice:

1) Intelligence is believed to have evolved by the powers of the nature — naturalism. Let’s investigate if these powers of nature can be used to (re)evolve intelligence in a controlled environment. It seems there is scientific consensus on the origin of the universe, life, totally different life forms, natural intelligence, and the human language:

The Big Bang hypothesis is believed to describe how the universe is expanded;
The Abiogenesis hypothesis is believed to describe how life have emerged;
The Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is believed to describe how entirely different life forms, natural intelligence, and the human language evolved;

2) Also Abrahamic religions claim to hold a power to create: God is the origin of intelligence and creation. God created the universe and life, and entirely different life forms, including intelligent life forms. Let’s find out if God’s intelligent design of nature — in particular the intelligent design of the human language — can be unraveled and re-created.

After we have made this fundamental choice, we are able to establish the way nature works in regard to natural intelligence.

1.2.1. Big Bang hypothesis

No variant of the Big Bang hypothesis can be fully described physically, chemically, mathematically, biologically, or in any other deterministic way. As a consequence, no variant of the Big Bang hypothesis provides solid scientific evidence that can be repeated, tested, and falsified.

1.2.2. Abiogenesis hypothesis

No variant of the abiogenesis hypothesis can be fully described physically, chemically, mathematically, biologically, or in any other deterministic way. As a consequence, no variant of the abiogenesis hypothesis provides solid scientific evidence that can be repeated, tested, and falsified.

Moreover, we perceive nothing other than that life is required to produce a new living organism.

1.2.3. Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent

It seems there is scientific consensus that the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is involved in the assumed emergence of natural intelligence and natural language. However, no variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent can be fully described physically, chemically, mathematically, biologically, or in any other deterministic way. As a consequence, no variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent provides solid scientific evidence that can be repeated, tested, and falsified.

Moreover, we perceive nothing other than:

Viruses produce viruses;
Bacteria produce bacteria;
Fungi produce fungi;
Plants produce plants;
Fish produce fish;
Birds produce birds;
Monkeys produce monkeys;
And humans sometimes produce pigs.

Therefore, the assumed process of evolution can not be used to replicate the assumed emergence of natural intelligence or natural language.

Besides that, any variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent seems fundamentally at odds with Christian beliefs. So, only one of both belief systems can be true:

If man shares a common ancestor with the ape, Adam and Eve never existed;
If Adam and Eve never existed, the Fall — high treason against God — never happened;
If the Fall never happened, the redemption through Jesus is meaningless;
If redemption through Jesus is meaningless, the Christian faith is nothing but an empty religion.

I noticed a few cases of misunderstanding, which need to be addressed:

the assumed power of emergent behavior,
the assumed power of self-organization,
and the assumed “overwhelming evidence”.

1.2.3.1. Emergent behavior or intelligent design?

Above, the phrase “the assumed emergence of” is used.

From the prospective of naturalism / evolutionism / atheism, emergent behavior is an unexplained emerging behavior of nature. It is key to their world view. However, according to Abrahamic religions, these natural processes are part of God’s intelligent design of nature.

How to find out the truth? My answer to everything: replicate!

The first person to replicate a so-called unexplained emergence of nature — like natural intelligence — probably understands the best the way nature works. And their world view probably describes the best the way nature works:

So — naturalists / evolutionists / atheists — build the fastest supercomputer the world has ever seen, and replicate those assumed billions of years of evolution — or just a convincing part of it — to show the potential of emergent behavior;
On the other hand — Christians — unravel God’s intelligent design, like the intelligent design of the human language.

Ready, set, go!

1.2.3.2. Self-organization (misunderstood)

One who believes in emergentism, will probably misunderstand what self-organization is.

The following ‘scientific’ paper states: “Self-organization refers to a broad range of pattern-formation processes in both physical and biological systems”.

However, in this paper, no distinction is made between a static ‘organization’ — which is limited to pattern formation — and a dynamic organization, which requires natural intelligence.

Distinction:

Natural pattern formation — like fractals and the formation of snowflakes — is a static process, based on rules (fractals) or the laws of nature (the formation of snowflakes);
Swarming of birds is a dynamic, temporary process, based on the bird’s instinct. Instinct is an innate mechanism of survival. In case of no danger, swarming is practiced as an emergency drill, while it also improves bonding;
Self-organization is a dynamic, continuous process. It is a result of natural intelligence;
Any other organization — like a company or a pack of wolves — is a dynamic, continuous process of multiple intelligent actors.

So, (self-)organization is a result of natural intelligence rather than being the origin.

1.2.3.3. Believing in overwhelming evidence… (Santa Claus)

Some people claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent. In the same way, we can claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for Santa Claus too:

Advertisements will forecast his coming;
Then he appears everywhere at once;
Presents are given;
His address is known: North Pole 1;
One can meet him in person;
And if one posts/mail/texts/app a message, one will get a response.

But we all know: Santa Claus is just a make-believe. In the same way, any variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is just a make-believe without direct observations, by which this hypothesis can not be repeated, tested, or falsified. Therefore, this hypothesis is unscientific.

1.2.4. House of cards

Hypotheses like any variant of the Big Bang hypothesis, any variant of abiogenesis hypothesis, and any variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent are all based on interpretations of — indirect or unrelated — observations. On top of these foundation hypotheses, other hypotheses on the origin of the universe and life are placed.

For example, the hypothesis of extraterritorial life is based on the abiogenesis hypothesis (“If abiogenesis occurred on Earth, it could have occurred on other planets as well”). And the hypotheses on dark matter and dark energy are depending on the Big Bang hypothesis.

To illustrate, Christian beliefs do not include hypotheses like Big Bang and abiogenesis. So, they do not include hypotheses like extraterritorial life, dark matter and dark energy either.

By stacking hypotheses on top of each other, a house of cards is created. If one of the foundation hypotheses falls, the entire belief system will collapse.

1.2.5. Creation / Intelligent design

According to Christian beliefs, one who sincerely investigates God's creation will gain fundamental insights from God, giving them an advantage in fundamental science.

For centuries, Christian scientists were leading in fundamental science. They sincerely observed the way nature — God's creation — works. As a result, their findings could be replicated in a controlled environment, after which their findings could be applied to daily life, in fields like:

Physics (Isaac Newton and Arthur Compton),
mathematics (Gottfried Leibniz, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann and Kurt Gödel),
chemistry (Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier),
electromagnetism (Alessandro Volta, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell),
genetics (Ronald Fisher and Gregor Mendel — who is called the “father of modern genetics”),
computer science (Charles Babbage — who is called the “father of the computer” — and George Boole — who is called the “father of the digital age” or the “father of binary logic”).

By replicating and applying their findings, these Christian scientists provided a Return on Investment to taxpayers, which we still benefit from today. So, this approach of using fundamental science might be useful to investigate God’s creation — God’s intelligent design — in regard to natural intelligence and natural language.

1.2.5.1. Natural reasoning in natural language

According to Christian beliefs, God is the origin of intelligence, while we perceive nothing other than that intelligence is required to develop logical systems. So, it is striking that most scientists mentioned above were somehow involved with logic.
Moreover, there is even a scientifically accepted case of natural reasoning in natural language — combining logic / intelligence with language — described by Aristotle almost 2,400 years ago:

Given: “All philosophers are mortal.”
Given: “Socrates is a philosopher.”
Logical conclusion: “Socrates is mortal.”

This case of natural reasoning in natural language will be the start of our investigation of finding, unraveling and replicating God’s intelligent design in regard to natural intelligence and natural language.

1.3. Fundamental science is able to close the circle

All natural phenomena that are scientifically understood, obey the laws of nature. And all natural phenomena close the circle, as illustrated by the example of electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism is scientifically understood because it closes the circle:

We can convert motion to electromagnetism, and convert electromagnetism back to motion;
We can convert light to electromagnetism, and electromagnetism back to light;
We can convert magnetism to electricity, and electricity back to magnetism.

Everything in nature is bound by the laws of nature and proceeds according to the laws of nature. Those who are unable to define the laws of nature that apply to the natural phenomenon under study will be unable to replicate that natural phenomenon under study — in a controlled environment — and, therefore, unable to close the circle on the involved natural phenomena.

1.3.1. Fundamental science versus cognitive science

Intelligence and language are natural phenomena. All natural phenomena obey the laws of nature. And the laws of nature are investigated using fundamental science. However, the field of AI and NLP is investigated using behavioral/cognitive science. To illustrate the difference:

As a consequence of being investigated using cognitive science, the field of AI / NLP is unable to close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language. To close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language, we need to investigate these natural phenomena using fundamental science.

1.3.2. AI / NLP is unable to close the circle

In primary school, we all learned a similar sum:

Given: “John has 3 apples.”
Given: “Peter has 4 apples.”
Logical conclusion: “Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

The school teacher then wrote:

3 apples + 4 apples = 7 apples

However, the result of the sum — “7 apples” — lacks a reference to “John and Peter”. So, the result of this sum is insufficient to construct the following readable sentence:

“Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

Hopefully, mathematicians will come to the rescue, by closing the circle scientifically:

J = 3
P = 4
J + P = 7

Unfortunately, the mathematical result “J + P = 7” lacks a reference to “apples”. So, also the result of this algebra is insufficient to construct a readable sentence. It would require an engineered solution to come to:

“Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

This is just one example of my scientific challenge to beat my reasoning system. A generic solution to this particular example is described in Block 3.

Natural intelligence and natural language are not scientifically understood. Therefore, the field of AI / NLP itself is not scientific, because scientists are falling short of closing the circle on a childishly simple sum expressed in natural language:

From natural language,
through natural logic (natural intelligence),
with the result expressed in readable — word-by-word constructed — sentences again.

It may seem like Large Language Models (LLM) can solve reasoning problems, from readable sentences — through natural logic (natural intelligence) — with the result expressed in readable sentences again. However, LLMs only have a limited, engineered reasoning capability. When reasoning problems are combined, LLMs will start to lose context.

We must investigate the way nature works regarding natural intelligence and natural language, after which we will be able to develop algorithms — based on natural intelligence — that will not lose context when reasoning problems are combined.

1.4. Science

Science is about observed phenomena, while belief is about unobserved phenomena.

The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of totally different life forms (taxonomic family classifications), the origin of (natural) intelligence, and the origin of the human language has not been observed, and is therefore not part of science, but part of a belief, unless the phenomenon itself can be replicated — at scale if needed — in a controlled environment.

This document is about replicating Laws of Intelligence that are naturally found in the Human Language.