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.”

  • 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—a specific solution to a specific problem—to come to:

  • “Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

_____________________________​​​​


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-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 ‘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. Neurons, intelligence, and learning

Many scientists believe that intelligence evolved in brains over a long period of time. But I know that neurons are not essential to intelligence — just as feathers and flapping wings are not essential to flight.

Learning requires natural intelligence. Yet scientists have no clear understanding of what natural intelligence actually is. Therefore, what we call "Machine Learning" cannot learn.

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) illustrate my father’s advice: “Don't become a monkey trained to perform a trick”. ANNs, much like the trained monkey, rely on imitation and repetition. Their abilities are therefore restricted to pattern recognition and pattern generation, without comprehension.

The intelligence of Large Language Models (LLMs) stems not from the complexity of their neural networks, but from the logic naturally embedded in the human-written texts they are trained on.

Some, however, attribute LLM's capabilities to emergent properties arising from neural complexity rather than the logical structures within human language. Consequently, they struggle to develop a system like mine—which is 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 his coming (predictive power);

  • then he appears everywhere at once. 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;

  • and presents are given.


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.

A make-believe starts by ignoring disconfirming facts. And a religion starts when this make-believe is actively spread. Philosophical naturalists are actively spreading their religion.

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.

1.3.5. Science-washing

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

Philosophical naturalists employ a subtle shift in this regard: they move the focus from the natural phenomena themselves to their hypothetical models concerning the origins of the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, and the human language, presenting these hypothetical models as scientific explanations.

However, their hypothetical models do not necessarily describe how nature actually operates; instead, they are grounded in the belief that God does not exist—or at least that God played no role in these origins.

As a result of this “science-washing”, philosophical naturalists can only reproduce their own hypothetical model of intelligence—presenting it as if it were equivalent to natural intelligence—since their underlying hypotheses conflict with the very phenomena they aim to explain.

1.3.6. Hiding behind historical science

Under philosophical naturalism, natural processes are considered sufficient to account for the origins of the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, and the human language, without recourse to intelligent design or supernatural intervention.


However, when asked to reproduce the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, or the human language, under controlled conditions—at scale if required—believers of philosophical naturalism tend to hide behind the term historical science by placing their hypotheses beyond the reach of empirical research in the hope to protect these hypotheses from falsification.

​​​

In this way, a paradox is created:

  • Either, natural laws are sufficient to explain the emergence of the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, and the human language. In that case their emergence can be replicated by the natural processes that describe them;

​​​

  • Or, the origins of the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, and the human language are claimed to be historical, investigated by historical science. In that case, these natural phenomena could be created by God, by which creation by God should be included in this historical, scientific research, regardless of whether philosophical naturalism is thereby refuted.

​​

In fact, philosophical naturalism undermines itself, by replacing the involvement of an intelligent, supernatural entity (God) with hypotheses that are equally unfalsifiable.

In the end, philosophical naturalism failing to replicate their beliefs in a controlled environment—at scale if required—is probably the best proof that natural processes alone are insufficient to create energy, matter, the universe, life, taxonomic families, natural intelligence, and the human language.

1.3.7. Limitations of philosophical naturalism

Philosophical naturalism posits that everything can be explained through natural laws and natural forces, thus without any influence of the supernatural.

Philosophical naturalism is designed to provide ex post explanations—explaining afterwards—but not to discover or utilize natural phenomena. So, suppose the airplane had not yet been invented; then philosophical naturalism—due to its explanatory nature—would not be able to discover and apply the Laws of Nature that govern flight.

Discovering and applying natural phenomena requires an approach of discovery and application. For centuries, such a scientific approach was successful. But in the 19th century, this successful approach was replaced in certain disciplines by philosophical naturalism.

But due to the exploratory nature of humankind, this limitation of philosophical naturalism will eventually be recognized. It may turn out that the explanations of philosophical naturalism are fundamentally at odds with new discoveries, such as the understanding what natural intelligence actually is.

1.3.8. Clash of belief systems

A philosophical naturalist 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.

​

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

​

_____________________________​​​

(*) the logic is fully programmed, but my system has no prior knowledge

1.3.9. 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.

1.3.10. 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