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 may be synonymous with consciousness (and free will). Yet systems based on Controlled Natural Language can perform logical reasoning without possessing consciousness.

Neurons
Similarly, many scientists consider neurons essential to natural intelligence. However, Controlled Natural Language reasoners demonstrate that logical reasoning is possible without Artificial neural networks. This suggests that neurons are not essential to intelligence—just as feathers and flapping wings are not essential to flight.

Learning

Learning requires natural intelligence. Yet scientists still do not fully understand what natural intelligence actually 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”. In this sense, ANNs resemble a trained monkey—capable of performing, but not of understanding. Moreover, their capabilities are largely confined to pattern recognition and pattern generation.

Complexity
Influenced by philosophical naturalism, some believe that emergent properties will arise from complexity. Pattern recognition and pattern generation may indeed benefit from vast amounts of data. But natural intelligence involves the application of inherently embedded logic. This natural logic will not emerge from data by complexity.

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.

Some scientists, however, attribute the capabilities of LLMs to emergent properties arising from neural complexity, rather than to the logical structures present in human language. Consequently, they face challenges in developing systems like mine—systems grounded in the Laws of Intelligence naturally embedded in the Human Language.

1.3.3. Believing in overwhelming evidence… (Santa Claus)

Some people claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for (any variant of) the Evolutionary hypothesis 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 (any variant of) the Evolutionary hypothesis 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 labeled—like dark matter and dark energy—then set aside as provisional “placeholders” or reframed as “active areas of research.” In this way, a faltering philosophical naturalism is kept alive.

Religion
And a religion takes shape when such make-believe is actively promoted. Believers of philosophical naturalism are spreading their ideas throughout society, including among vulnerable youth.

1.3.4. Boundaries of evolution

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 seems this distinction of taxonomic families is not even clearly labeled. What was once called macroevolution has had its definition broadened or altered over time.

1.3.5. 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.

1.3.6. 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 theories such as the Big Bang, primordial soup, and Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent.

​​

If you cannot replicate the origin of the laws of nature, energy, and matter, then you don’t even need to think about how more complex structures would have emerged through natural processes, such as the universe, life, taxonomic families, and natural intelligence. Then you’re simply fantasizing at the taxpayer’s expense.

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

​

Even in fairy tales, nothing happens without a cause—every action has a reaction, as in “Open Sesame!”. Nothing can—or ever will—occur on its own, unless a god is involved, either known as God or nicknamed as “natural processes”.

1.3.7. 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 variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent was required for the invention of the airplane. 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 variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is useful for understanding the foundations of natural intelligence, because 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.

1.3.8. 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.

1.3.9. 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.

1.3.10. 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.

1.3.11. 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.

1.3.12. Fundamental choice: apes or Adam and Eve?

Any variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is 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 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