top of page

1. Fundamental science

This document proposes a fundamental—scientific—approach towards a profound understanding of natural intelligence and natural language based on the laws of nature.

1.1. Fundamental truth

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


Nature operates in a single, definite order, governed by natural laws. Those who investigate these laws and uncover how nature truly works will find their discoveries confirmed under controlled conditions — and, in time, applied to everyday life. In this way, taxpayers will have a Return on Investment in their funding of science.

1.2. Fundamental sciences are closing the circle

We perceive nothing other than natural phenomena obeying the laws of nature, and proceeding according to the laws of nature. And we perceive nothing other than natural phenomena closing the circle, as illustrated by the following example of electromagnetism.

The field of electromagnetism is a fundamental science because it closes the circle:

  • We can convert light to electricity, and we can convert electricity back to light;

  • We can convert motion—via magnetism—to electricity, and convert electricity—via magnetism—back to motion.

1.2.1. Cognitive science

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP)—in a broad sense—is mainly studied from the perspective of behavioral/cognitive science, resulting in mimicry of behavior. However, mimicking the behavior of a hen (chicken) does not produce eggs. AI is therefore not naturally intelligent, but the result of human ingenuity.

AI may deliver useful engineered techniques. But humans are the only intelligent actor in AI.

1.2.1.1. AI / NLP is unable to close the circle

As a consequence of being investigated from the perspective of cognitive science, the field of AI / NLP is unable to close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language:
    • From readable sentences,
    • through natural logic (natural intelligence),
    • with the result expressed in readable — word-by-word constructed — sentences again.

Illustrated by an example:

_____________________________​​​​

In primary school we all learned a similar sum, given:

  • “John has 3 apples.”

  • “Peter has 4 apples.”


The school teacher then wrote:

  • 3 apples + 4 apples = 7 apples


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

  • “John and Peter have 7 apples together.”


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 the reference to “apples”. So, also the result of the algebra is insufficient to automatically construct readable sentence:

  • “John and Peter have 7 apples together.”


Lacking a generic solution, it would require either human interaction, or an engineered solution—a specific solution to a specific problem. Therefore, AI / NLP is not a science, but a field of engineering.

_____________________________​​​​


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

It may seem like Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve reasoning problems. However, LLMs only have a limited, engineered reasoning capability. When reasoning problems are combined, LLMs will start to lose context.

Besides that, AI / NLP is lacking self-organising properties, while our brains do not need help of experts to get their knowledge organised.

1.2.2. Fundamental science investigates Logic and Laws of Nature

Intelligence and language are natural phenomena. To close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language, we need to investigate these natural phenomena from the perspective of fundamental science—also known as Basic Research—which investigates Logic and Laws of Nature.

To illustrate the difference with cognitive science:

Fundamental science versus cognitive science

1.3. Pitfalls

I noticed a few cases of misunderstanding, which will be addressed in the following paragraphs.

1.3.1. Self-organisation (misunderstood)

Self-organisation is often misunderstood. The following ‘scientific’ paper states:

​

“Self-organisation 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 ‘organisation’—which is limited to pattern formation—and a dynamic organisation, which requires natural intelligence.

Distinction:

  • Natural pattern formation—such as 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-organisation is a dynamic, continuous process. It is a result of natural intelligence;

  • Any other organisation—such as a company or a pack of wolves—is a dynamic, continuous process of multiple intelligent actors.


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

1.3.2. Consciousness, neurons, learning, complexity, and intelligence

Consciousness

To many scientists, natural intelligence and consciousness are closely intertwined. Yet consciousness is more than intelligence alone; it is the capacity of an intelligent being to function as an aware participant within complex social and relational structures. While consciousness depends on natural intelligence, it cannot be reduced to it. Systems based on Controlled Natural Language, for example, can perform logical reasoning without possessing consciousness.


Neurons

Similarly, many scientists consider neurons essential to natural intelligence. However, Controlled Natural Language reasoners also demonstrate logical reasoning without (artificial) neurons. Apparently, neurons are not essential to intelligence—just as feathers and flapping wings are not essential to aviation.


Learning

Learning requires natural intelligence. Yet scientists still do not understand what natural intelligence is. By that logic, what we call “Machine Learning” is unable to learn.

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) reflect a simple piece of advice my father once gave: “Don't become a monkey trained to perform a trick”. ANNs resemble a trained monkey—capable of performing, but not of understanding.


Complexity
Philosophical naturalism confuses the term “complexity” with “order”. Natural processes may indeed produce complex patterns. But complexity does not necessarily imply order, let alone a functioning system. In fact, we have never observed complexity itself giving rise to order, much less to a functioning system.

Moreover, great thinkers like Albert Einstein have emphasized that:

  • True intelligence seeks clarity, not complexity;

  • Intelligence is not expressed in complexity, but in the ability to distill things to their essence;

  • Simplicity is the highest form of sophistication, and that complexity is often a sign of incomplete understanding.


Intelligence
If Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit any form of intelligence, it did not arise from the complexity of their neural architectures, but from the inherent logic embedded in the human-written texts on which they are trained.

Without applying Laws of Intelligence naturally embedded in the Human Language, scientists will be unable to develop a reasoning system like mine.

1.3.3. Believing in overwhelming evidence… (Santa Claus)

Some people claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for evolutionary hypotheses of common descent. However, by being selective—by ignoring disconfirming facts—one can also claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for Santa Claus too:

  • Advertisements will forecast the coming of Santa;

  • Then he appears everywhere at once, confirming the predictive power of advertisements;

  • So, one can meet him in person;

  • If one posts/mails/texts/apps a message, one will get a response;

  • His address is known: North Pole 1;

  • Presents are given;

  • and some presents were on wish lists, confirming the predictive power of wish lists.

​​

But we all know: Santa Claus is just a make-believe. In the same way, the “overwhelming evidence” for evolutionary hypotheses of common descent is just selective—ignoring disconfirming facts—and is therefore unscientific.
 

Make-believe
A make-believe begins by ignoring disconfirming facts. In philosophical naturalism, disconfirming facts are often labelled—like dark matter and dark energy—then set aside as “placeholders” and reframed as “active areas of research”. In this way, a faltering philosophical naturalism is kept alive, and its ideas are propagated throughout society, including among vulnerable young people.

1.3.3.1. Observed evolution versus hypothetical evolution

According to evolutionary hypotheses of common descent, there is no fundamental distinction between evolution observed within taxonomic families and the hypothetical evolutionary processes proposed to extend beyond those boundaries; both are understood as parts of a single, continuous historical process. However, distinguishing between directly observed evolutionary change and the hypothetical evolutionary processes inferred from indirect evidence presents a different epistemological picture:

Observed evolution

  • Bacterial resistance, crop breeding, and animal breeding represent forms of evolutionary change that, as empirically observed, involve variation, selection, and modification within existing biological lineages. Bacteria remain within the bacterial domain, plants within plant lineages, and dogs within the canid lineage. These observations document substantial biological variation and adaptation but, in themselves, do not demonstrate the emergence of fundamentally different biological categories;

​

  • Genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms are computational models inspired by evolutionary processes. They operate within the parameters and rules defined by their programmers and do not, by themselves, provide empirical evidence for evolutionary processes beyond those directly observed in biological systems.


Hypothetical evolution

  • Within evolutionary hypotheses of common descent, fossils are interpreted as representing organisms related to common ancestors. The methods used to estimate their chronological ages, as well as the interpretation of the resulting dates, remain subject to ongoing scientific evaluation and debate. Neither the evolutionary relationships inferred from the fossil record nor the complete historical sequence of evolutionary change is directly observed;

​

  • Observed evolutionary change does not appear to follow a predetermined goal or direction. However, some observations of nature may be interpreted as suggesting that nature is not entirely devoid of purpose or direction and may ultimately derive from a source possessing intrinsic purpose and direction. It is therefore possible, as a philosophical or theological proposition, that the emergence of taxonomic families reflects divine agency.

1.3.3.2. Boundaries of evolution

In the physical world, everything appears to have limits or boundaries. For example, an electrical cable has a maximum current it can safely carry, a steel cable has a maximum tensile strength, and there is a fundamental speed limit in the universe: the speed of light.

 

Likewise, organisms evolve within the limits of their biological capabilities. We perceive nothing other than boundaries of evolution — expressed in taxonomic families:

  • Viruses only produce viruses;

  • Bacteria only produce bacteria;

  • Fungi only produce fungi;

  • Plants only produce plants;

  • Insects only produce insects;

  • Fish only produce fish;

  • Birds only produce birds;

  • Monkeys only produce monkeys;

  • And humans sometimes produce pigs.

​

It has not been demonstrated that organisms are capable of evolving into entirely new taxonomic families, for example that bacteria can produce non-bacteria. Consequently, evolutionary hypotheses of common descent remains pure speculation, a doctrine, a belief.

1.3.4. Disconnected from reality

Science is concerned with natural phenomena that can be observed, replicated, tested, and potentially falsified.

Fundamental science - A scientific model can be reproduced

Regarding the origins of the laws of nature, energy, matter, the universe, life, taxonomic families (*), natural intelligence, consciousness, and the human language, belief in God’s creation implies the following:

  • God created the laws of nature, as well as energy, matter, the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, consciousness, and the human language;

  • Humans are subject to these laws of nature;

  • Therefore, humans—including believers of philosophical naturalism—are unable to create new laws of nature, energy, matter, a new universe, life, new taxonomic families, full natural intelligence (**), consciousness, and the human language; nor can they alter the laws of nature, including time.


Stating such limitations is scientifically valid.

However, rather than acknowledging these limitations, believers of philosophical naturalism have created models outside the domain of verifiable science:

Fossils—and similar discoveries—are findings. However, findings are not necessarily proof, as their origin and significance can be interpreted in different ways. Believers of philosophical naturalism interpret such findings in ways that align with their underlying hypotheses, which can lead their models to become disconnected from reality and no longer falsifiable. When hypotheses are not falsifiable, they fall outside the domain of verifiable science.

Fundamental science - A hypothetical model can’t be reproduced

_____________________________​​​

(*) In Genesis 2 of the Bible, God gave Adam the privilege of naming all kinds of animals.

(**) Christians can explore—and to some extent replicate—the natural logic of human language, provided they sincerely seek understanding from the living God on this subject.

1.3.5. Historical science

With their models fallen outside the domain of verifiable science, believers of philosophical naturalism fall back on the term “historical science”. Yet Wikipedia offers no clear definition of this concept, aside from standard historical research on relatively recent history.

Moreover, historical research can be abused as an instrument of propaganda, with facts selectively presented or interpreted. If one seeks to promote the idea that God played no role in the origin of the laws of nature, energy, matter, the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, consciousness, and human language, this may lead to the development of hypotheses such as the Big Bang, primordial soup, and evolutionary hypotheses of common descent.

If one cannot even replicate the origin of the laws of nature, energy, and matter, then there is no reason to assume that one can explain the emergence of far more complex structures through purely natural processes—such as the universe, life, taxonomic families, and natural intelligence. At that point, one is simply fantasizing at the taxpayer’s expense.

This fantasy world of philosophical naturalism shows signs of a belief system—perhaps even a religion: vulnerable youth are legally indoctrinated with this fantasy.

In chemical and physical processes, there is always a cause that disturbs a state of equilibrium and causes a reaction to take place. However, the Big Bang, primordial soup, and evolutionary hypotheses of common descent describe reactions occurring without an initiating action. Therefore, either these hypotheses do not describe how nature actually works, or there is a deity that continually sets everything in motion.

Even in fairy tales, nothing happens without a cause—every action has a reaction, as in “Sesame, open”. Nothing can—or ever will—occur on its own, unless a deity is involved.

1.3.6. Limitations of philosophical naturalism

Philosophical naturalism is primarily geared toward providing ex post explanations—explaining phenomena after the fact—rather than discovering or actively harnessing them. As a result philosophical naturalism is not useful when it comes to discovering—let alone replicating—the phenomena it seeks to explain.

For example, no evolutionary hypothesis of common descent was required for the invention of the aeroplane. Aircraft do not depend on the evolution of feathers or flapping wings; rather, they operate according to the physical laws that govern flight.

In the same way, no evolutionary hypothesis of common descent is useful for understanding the foundations of natural intelligence. Natural intelligence can only be understood as grounded in the laws of nature themselves—as a system of logical rules governing natural processes—a view more closely aligned with the belief that nature is created by God.

So, it seems that philosophical naturalism neither describes nor explains how nature actually works. Rather, it appears to be a purely philosophical framework, disconnected from reality.

1.3.7. Clash of belief systems

Influenced by philosophical naturalism, some would argue that all the logic (*) within my system is fully programmed, and therefore exhibits no emergent properties — and consequently does not constitute natural intelligence.

My response would be that non-replicable emergent properties are unscientific. Moreover, I hold that nature itself is intelligently designed. Thus, if one aims to replicate natural intelligence, one must also replicate the intelligent design underlying it.

​

Any belief system that successfully replicates a natural phenomenon—once beyond understanding—likely provides a more accurate explanation of how nature actually functions.

​​

_____________________________​​​

(*) My system has no prior knowledge. Any knowledge entered, is processed according to the programmed natural logic.

1.3.8. How philosophical naturalism is useful

Philosophical naturalism tests the belief in creation by God to its very core:
 

  • If the laws of nature, energy, or matter can arise from nothing through natural processes,

  • or if the laws of nature—including time—can be altered (*),

  • or if life can be created from non-living matter (**),

  • or if life is definitively found on other planets (***),

  • or if a genuinely new life form—a new taxonomic family—can be evolved in a laboratory,

  • or if my automated CNL reasoner is surpassed by emergent properties,


then the belief in creation by God might not be an accurate explanation of how nature actually functions. For the time being, however, creation by God remains, the most thoroughly tested belief system—ironically, thanks to philosophical naturalism.
​​
_____________________________​​​
(*) God created the laws of nature. Humans are subject to these laws, which rules out time travel.

(**) If life cannot arise from non-living matter, it rules out alien life on other planets.

 

(**) God has not created life on other planets. A simple deduction: God’s love for His creation is so great that—even when humanity committed high treason against Him—He chose to provide redemption through Jesus as a rescue plan, rather than starting a new project on another planet.

1.3.9. Largest thought experiment ever conducted—yet it failed

Philosophical naturalism is the largest thought experiment ever undertaken: the attempt to exclude God from the equation by assuming that everything that exists can be explained as arising solely from natural processes. Yet it appears to rest on a false premise.

For example, if everything arose from natural processes, how did the underlying laws of nature themselves arise? Some, including Stephen Hawking, have tried to sidestep this question by suggesting that the laws of nature need not be explained within science itself—leaving open the possibility that the laws of nature were created by God, which undermines the original aim of philosophical naturalism.

And some argue that energy arose from quantum fluctuations. However, quantum fluctuations themselves presuppose energy, which leads to circular reasoning.

So the question of whether God was required to create everything that exists remains unresolved; as a result, it is still a matter of belief rather than a settled conclusion.

​

Or, as I would put it: Starting from a false premise will not bring you closer to the truth.

1.3.10. Is Christianity anti-science?

Some people believe that Christianity is anti-science, or anti-scientific. However, for centuries, Christian scientists were leading in fundamental science. They sincerely observed the way nature — as created by God — works. As a result, their findings could be reproduced under controlled conditions, after which their findings could be applied to daily life, in fields like:

 

By replicating and applying their findings, these Christian scientists provided a Return on Investment to taxpayers, which we still benefit from today. Their approach of using fundamental science might be useful to investigate natural intelligence and natural language too.

1.3.11. Fundamental choice: apes or Adam and Eve?

Evolutionary hypotheses of common descent are fundamentally at odds with Christian beliefs. And theistic evolutionism is just a variant of the theory of evolution, topped with a religious sauce. 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 of man—high treason against God—never happened;

  • If the Fall of man never happened, the redemption through Jesus is meaningless;

  • If redemption through Jesus is meaningless, Christianity is nothing but an empty religion.

​

So everyone has to make a choice: a common ancestor with the ape, or creation by God.

  • LinkedIn
  • Bluesky_Logo.svg

©2026 Menno Mafait

bottom of page