《致全球每個人的信》是想呼籲全人類關注討論人類所有不順可能全都源於人類把追求文明的方向弄反了

——特別題記。本文是放在世界信息海洋中的重要漂流瓶：呼籲聯合國等國際各種人類社會合作組織與各國政府以及國際各媒體都能支持來儘快搭建一個能全球對話的平台以討論這樣的主題，即為什麼自古以來時時導引每個人類一輩子所有行為的物質概念必須徹底予以徹底剔除，而後顛覆性地替代為應抓準的那真正一直導引文明的總綱，這是涉及整個人類生死存亡的大事。

——作者：金穀雨

本信希望每一個人都關注，所以用詞遣句力求以雅俗共通。

本人一個田野老夫，尚須忙於一日三餐，卻不顧身份，非要堅持給中共中央年年屢屢寫信，且連年不斷，一寫二十多年。見從未被理會，又寫系列《致全球每一個人的信》和相關文章，設法傳遞到一些中文網站論壇。且向聯合國發起的人工智能全球對話活動，發出申請《關於聯合國人工智能全球對話是否能將“社會合作結構的穩定性為構成高級AI安全治理的前提”課題列入對話主題提案》（該提案已經於2026.8.8發聯合國秘書處2026年聯繫郵箱：aidialogue@un.org，），同時向各相關研究機構和智庫寫信建議關注這個課題，還寫信給各國政要和一些媒體，尋求精英給予支持.......。這一切，都是因為本人將履經經歷的信息綜合後認為，人類已經有條件提升認知而覺悟，來實現不再互斗互害而都能順暢可持續地和諧合作的目標。這個目標的實現，意味着每一個人來到人間，都能一生順暢、輕鬆地享受幸福的一生。

將我獲得所有信息綜合後得出的結論，予以簡單說就是，人類比動物更善於合作才創造了文明迄今，每個人一生都從保障安全生存為基礎追求自己認為該實現的人生價值。但這期間人類所有的不順，全都因為把唯一能給予保障安全與追求價值實現的方向完全弄反了。

人類初睜眼睛，將看到的各種認知對象命名為物質，而通過五官直接有了擁有物質的滿足感，就一直誤以為，先要擁“有”，人生旅程的程序才會“順”。實際上，人類在現實宇宙能覺知的一切演繹現象，都是按照程序“順了”而能合作才組合成一個“有”的模式來演繹的。膠球的發現，也許能啟迪人類進一步明確，我們理解的物質，本質上是宇宙能量運動產生程序形成組合合作模式的程序演繹表形，物質，不是這個世界真相的底層支撐，只是演繹表象一部分，是極其雜亂的不能被定位的幻象詞彙，人類以之為生活目標，就陷入了雜亂幻化表形陷阱，而難於辨清真相。我所能看到的一切，因為在演繹底層上都遵循着“順了才會有而不是有了就能順”的規律，所以我提出了宇宙所有演繹現象必然要共同遵循的本質規律是程序定質規律的假說。並且由此推論出，像宇宙能量除了開放和做功外還必須形成程序組合動態平衡才能逆熵一樣，文明的本質與標準就九個字，“抓程序、做模式、求平衡。”人類實現文明的具體路徑就八個字，“以序為綱、循序定度。”因此，人類的所有亂象都來源於不知道想做好任何事都要先抓准、抓穩程序，常導致程序錯亂而使應精準定位的法度被錯位，造成事實與是非的判斷都似是而非糊塗化，資源便被錯置垃圾化。至今為止，完全不懂抓程序是做事前提的，都在茫然隨波逐流；不同程度悟到抓程序做事但不知要做模式的，都深陷在人人絕頂聰明的投機式愚蠢陷阱中而亂鬨鬨你方唱罷我登場，即使學習別人的文明成果也陷於東施效顰；少數清楚知道抓程序、做模式但悟不透求平衡的，在整個人類社會物質概念為基礎的文化意識生態洪流的推搡下，不能透徹理解所有價值實現的方式都必須通過求平衡實現的，常常被整個社會絕頂聰明的價值取向帶歪........。這導致創造與維持人類文明的人類社會合作的程序模式結構，其無論如何做頂層設計，都必然逐漸會被人類逆宇宙本質而動的錯誤價值追求方向形成的思維模式所推動的行為機制，逐步帶偏而肢解，導致任何社會合作模式都會最終崩塌。這個過程，在和平年代就體現為互斗互害，蟻穴般摧毀社會合作模式導致大規模崩塌後，人類就陷入戰爭重組。人類文明已經如此反覆輪迴了幾千年。因此，從認知程序定質規律開始認知宇宙本質真相，從而遵循文明標準，來更新升級處在人類社會合作結構底層的人類思維模式，從夯實社會合作結構底層開始重構人類文明框架，是人類唯一能走出叢林走向可持續和諧合作高級文明的必由之路。

人類要徹底走出叢林實現可持續和諧合作高級文明，也即世界永久和平，非常容易，只要剔除人類思維模式的物質習慣視角的梗阻即可。因為人類所有的文明成果，包括自然科學成果與物質財富和社會合作財富，都能實證是按照程序“順了才會有”的方向才能取得的。人類所有的不順，都是因為誤認為而執迷於“有了就會順”所造成的。因此，只要人類醒悟後，改變看財富與價值視角，從程序視角去審視，程序定質規律是否能成立的依據，就能昭然彰顯出是存在於人類從日常所有行為到整個社會行為中的，全方位全時空都是證據。正因如此，我提出的文明本質真相與標準，是否真這樣，只需要能有一個好好說話的平台，來觸動全人類都來關注甄別這個課題，就很容易清晰。

但要朝這個方向做努力也很難。因為人類現在思維模式及其文明框架的形成，全都構建在對物質財富追求的基礎上，且被人類五官能直接感知而緊緊束縛着。人類能夠有文明成果，只是因一些人能在人類五官追求與宇宙本質方向相反形成的衝突中，衝破五官感知邊界而茫然抓住了程序視角形成抽象思維模式，才導引了文明成果的誕生。

如果這一切是確切的，那麼顯然，人類的正確努力方向，是人人都要從提升自己觀察與判斷價值的站立基礎開始，從雜亂不穩定的表形升級到宇宙本質真相為基礎，來開抬升整個人類社會合作的視角與視野，才能看清當前世界詭譎風雲的本質及衝破風雲遮蔽而走向文明陽光的出路與方向。這裡，人類各種社會合作組織，才可能具有在最短的時間內最直接發揮推動力最好條件，來改變整個人類文明框架幾千年形成的真假顛倒式運轉慣性方向。

因此，甄別我提出的宇宙本質規律是程序定質規律的假說，是全面顛覆現在人類生活習慣的大事，是因所有人做所有事都離不開而如空氣般熟悉，也就最不容易被發現但卻直擊所有事本質的大事。特別在當前誰也說不清文明該向哪個方向走時，人類不妨先都來看看這裡說的事。是不是人類不該再枉顧左右，應選擇向上，抬升人類社會合作站立基礎。

當我認為人類存在這樣的關及決定着所有人做所有事成敗乃至生死的事，自然會想辦法說出來請全人類來甄別。但現實中遇到三個問題。

一個是我住的環境，是一個幾千年來特別突出呈現為“你越正確就越得罪人”的社會生態（台灣教授曾仕強總結中國文化生態時說的話），所以可能今後不能再為此說什麼了。我因二十多年給中共中央寫信，也沒有叩開能好好說話的大門，便從窗縫中傳遞發聲而在網絡上發布《致全球每一個人的信》，儘管因涉及自然哲學的緣故而無多少人關注，卻還是有一隻要把窗縫扣死的手伸過來了。

二是我近期連續兩次因心臟問題被急救車送醫院急診，更感到，既然認為這是對每一個人都有根本好處的事，就應再度發文呼籲一次。

三是本是草根，不似大樹。

綜而思鑒，再寫這篇文章，將給聯合國呈報課題中的一個文件：解釋提出該課題所依據的理論基礎“程序定質規律”的研究思考背景資料，發在這裡，希望所有的草根都來加持“野火燒不盡且春風吹又生”的巨大能量，將這裡的信息傳遞給全人類，而催生能撼動世界的人類精英。

給聯合國和各類人類合作組織以及媒體發的英文與中文雙語本，原樣粘貼在這裡。希望這漂流在世界信息海洋的漂流瓶，能有被開啟的那一天，或許我各方麵條件許可，再來與所有想對話的人共同甄別。

Background Note on the “Law of Procedural Determination”

I. The Natural-Philosophical Perspective of the “Law of Procedural Determination”

From the knowledge humanity has accumulated through its exploration of nature, everything we are able to perceive and understand appears in some form of motion, change, interaction, and resulting outcome.

If we continue to trace these phenomena toward a more fundamental level, they may provisionally be understood in terms of two factors:

First, energy;
second, the procedures, order, and relational processes formed through the motion of energy.

Humanity has not yet exhausted the ultimate question of what cosmic energy itself fundamentally is. Yet whatever the final ontological answer may be, when we examine any object that human beings are capable of knowing, continued inquiry reveals that all such objects share one common question:

Through what kind of process of motion did it arise, become connected, evolve, and eventually produce the result we now observe?

Therefore, in my view, before humanity is able to directly grasp the ultimate ontology of the universe, “procedure” may be one of the most fundamental common dimensions through which we can continue to trace different objects of knowledge downward toward their foundations.

In other words, whether we examine natural phenomena, living systems, social organizations, institutional operation, or artificial intelligence, although they appear radically different on the surface, we can continue to ask:

· What are the participating elements that constitute them?

· In what sequence do these elements act?

· Through what rules do they become connected?

· What kind of structure emerges from those connections?

· How does that structure maintain or lose balance through feedback, constraint, and adjustment?

In this sense, I propose a judgment from the perspective of natural philosophy:

Different objects accessible to human knowledge may share a common direction of inquiry: to examine through what procedures energy, elements, or actors form relationships, and what kinds of structures and outcomes ultimately evolve from those relationships.

This is the original natural-philosophical point of departure of what I call the “Law of Procedural Determination.”

It does not claim that humanity has already discovered the ultimate ontology of the universe. Rather, it proposes that:

If we wish to move from phenomena toward essence, then investigating how things are procedurally organized and brought into being through processes of evolution may be a first-principles direction of inquiry deserving particular attention.

II. The Main Content and Meaning of the “Law of Procedural Determination”

The Law of Procedural Determination is a foundational hypothesis that remains to be tested, developed through my long-term observation and reflection.

Its most basic proposition is:

The nature, function, and outcome ultimately displayed by a thing do not depend solely on the constituent elements involved. They also depend on the procedures through which those elements enter into relationship, the relational structures they form, and whether those structures can establish and maintain an appropriate dynamic balance through continuous interaction.

Going further, what we ordinarily call a “constituent element itself,” if examined inwardly, may in turn be the result of more fundamental participating factors being linked through certain procedures, combined into structures, and maintained through dynamic balance.

This line of inquiry can therefore continue downward:

Why does an element possess a particular nature?
Because the participating factors within it form a certain structure.
Why does that structure take this form?
Because those factors enter into relationship through certain procedures.
Why can that structure continue to exist?
Because it maintains a certain dynamic balance through energy exchange and interaction.

We may then ask a further question:

The characteristics and properties through which any object presents itself to human perception as an independent object of knowledge may themselves reflect the distinctive requirements of the dynamically balanced structure created by its internal procedural combinations—requirements through which that structure must remain open to performing work and exchanging energy in order to sustain itself. Thus, even where the same pure carbon element is involved, one procedural mode of combination and cooperation can produce a dynamically balanced system that presents the properties of diamond, while another procedural mode of combination and cooperation presents the properties of graphite.

Ultimately, can we arrive at the following possibility?

For any object perceptible to human beings that independently manifests distinctive properties, both its stable sustainability and the manifestation of those properties may ultimately arise because the motion of cosmic energy generates procedures through which such structures are formed. If so, is procedure the fundamental factor determining every object human beings are capable of perceiving—or even the only fundamental factor? And if the laws governing procedural operation can be identified, might they constitute a general framework for natural philosophy? Could the common essential characteristic of civilized human action then be summarized in eight Chinese characters:

以序為綱，循序定度

approximately:

Take order as the guiding principle; determine appropriate limits through ordered process.

If this hypothesis proves valid, then the “nature” of a thing should not be understood merely as an attribute fixed in advance within an isolated element. It may instead be something determined and manifested through the operation of procedures, the formation of relationships, and the stabilization of structures.

Put differently:

Procedures form relationships; relationships form structures; structures form patterns; patterns sustain themselves through dynamic balance; and, through exchange and interaction with their surroundings, they manifest the properties, functions, and outcomes that we observe.

This is the core meaning of what I call “procedural determination.”

From this perspective, the same people, the same resources, the same knowledge, and the same technology may produce completely different—even opposite—results when placed within different procedures, orders, and relational structures.

For example:

The same technology may become a tool for improving life and expanding cooperation, or an instrument of control, deception, and destruction.

The same group of people may form trust and long-term cooperation under one institutional and interactive procedure, yet fall into suspicion, zero-sum competition, and mutual harm under another relational structure.

What changes may not primarily be the people, resources, or technology themselves, but rather:

how they are organized, how they are connected, and how they interact.

Therefore, to understand any complex system, it is not enough merely to ask, “What is it made of?”

More importantly, we must continue to ask:

In what sequence do its elements act?
Through what rules do they establish relationships?
What kind of pattern do those relationships form?
How do different forces generate feedback and constraint?
How does the structure maintain balance, and why does it lose balance?

I believe that if this line of inquiry is pursued layer by layer, it may at least provide a highly concise and potentially universal path of investigation:

work backward from outcomes to structures, from structures to relationships, from relationships to procedures, and from procedures to the mechanisms through which dynamic balance is formed.

Applying this hypothesis to civilization and social cooperation, I believe the essence of human civilization can be summarized in nine Chinese characters:

抓程序、做模式、求平衡

approximately:

Grasp the procedure. Build the model. Seek balance.

“Grasp the procedure” means identifying the key procedures that determine the nature of relationships.

“Build the model” means forming, on the basis of those procedures, structures of cooperation capable of sustained operation.

“Seek balance” means using continuous feedback, constraint, and adjustment to maintain sustainable dynamic stability within those structures.

At present, the Law of Procedural Determination is not a natural law established by modern scientific proof.

It remains a hypothesis that I hope can be jointly examined through different disciplines and real-world experience.

Whether it is valid should not depend on who proposes it, nor on how grand it may sound. It should depend on whether:

it can be clearly defined, generate judgments that can be compared, allow counterexamples, remain open to falsification, and ultimately gain or lose explanatory power across natural phenomena, complex systems, social cooperation, institutional operation, and the governance of artificial intelligence.

III. The Historical and Contemporary Significance of the “Law of Procedural Determination”

1. The value of natural philosophy often begins by changing the direction from which humanity observes a problem

Many major advances in the history of civilization did not begin simply because humanity acquired more details. They began because humanity changed the basic way in which problems were observed and organized.

Once the fundamental structure and evolutionary mechanism of an object are genuinely grasped, understanding often moves from complexity toward simplicity.

Conversely, when a problem becomes increasingly complicated over a long period, increasingly dependent on external control, yet still cannot be resolved in a stable way, this may indicate that its underlying structure remains insufficiently understood.

Human social cooperation is a typical example.

Humanity has created law, states, markets, democracy, ethics, international organizations, and numerous systems of governance. Yet the basic condition that creates and carries all these achievements of civilization—how human beings form stable and sustainable relationships of cooperation with one another—continues to break down repeatedly.

Civilization is established, then conflict follows.

Order is formed, then instability emerges.

Social cooperation expands, then gives way to concentrations of power, conflicts of interest, war, or institutional breakdown.

Then reconstruction begins again.

If this cycle has persisted for thousands of years, it is at least worth asking:

Have we still failed to grasp the underlying mechanism that explains why social cooperation can become stable—and why it repeatedly becomes unstable?

Humanity and human civilization are themselves part of natural evolution.

Therefore, if nature contains some broadly applicable law involving procedure—structure—balance, human society cannot be entirely exempt from it.

This is why, at a historical moment when the direction of civilization is highly uncertain, I believe the Law of Procedural Determination deserves serious examination.

What it may offer is not another specific political program, but a foundational perspective from which the structure of civilization can be reconsidered.

2. If the law is universal, its initial testing need not depend on expensive experiments

If the Law of Procedural Determination truly possesses some degree of universality, then the enormous body of existing human behavior and historical experience may itself provide material for testing.

Human society conducts forms of such “natural experiments” almost every day:

Why do the same people behave differently under different institutions?

Why do the same resources produce different social outcomes under different governance structures?

Why can the same technology both promote freedom and strengthen control?

Why do institutions that claim to preserve stability sometimes become less stable as control is intensified?

Why can the same national resources and organizational capacity release creativity under one cooperative model, while another model steadily consumes internal trust?

These phenomena can all be redescribed as:

different procedures → different relationships → different structures → different states of balance → different final properties and outcomes.

Only if a large number of independent facts support this structure—and if it can further generate predictions capable of being challenged—would the hypothesis acquire genuine research value.

Conversely, if large bodies of evidence cannot be explained by it, or if clear counterexamples exist, then the hypothesis should be modified or abandoned accordingly.

Therefore, what I seek is not “acceptance by all humanity,” but rather:

that people from different professional backgrounds use the facts they know best to test it together.

3. For civilization, it may mean moving from “studying the branches” to rediscovering the “root system”

If civilization is compared to a great tree, humanity today already possesses highly developed branches:

economics, political science, law, natural science, ethics, finance, military studies, public administration, artificial intelligence, and many others.

Each of these fields contains an enormous body of specialized knowledge.

Yet the foundational connections among them remain comparatively weak.

What actually creates and advances all of these achievements of civilization is the ability of human beings to sustain cooperation with one another.

In this sense, the structure of social cooperation resembles the trunk of civilization, while more universal laws of natural evolution may resemble the nutritional system connecting the trunk to its roots.

If we cannot see this connection, then whenever one branch begins to crack, we can only continue reinforcing that individual branch.

In human society, the most typical forms of such “external reinforcement” are ever-increasing:

control, coercion, surveillance, punishment, concentration of power, and deterrence.

Yet this contains a profound paradox:

In order to preserve civilized cooperation, humanity often finds itself relying on methods that weaken free cooperation in order to preserve cooperation itself.

The stronger the control, the more brittle the structure may sometimes become.

The greater the distrust, the higher the cost of surveillance.

The greater the external coercion, the weaker the internal capacity for voluntary cooperation may become.

Thus, external force continuously added in the name of stability may itself eventually become a new source of instability.

It is like a tree branch that has already lost its internal structural stability and can survive only by being bound ever more tightly from the outside. Once the external force exceeds what the structure can bear, the system enters a state of brittle fracture.

This is why I believe we should ask again:

Should the genuine stability of civilization depend primarily on ever-stronger external binding, or should it arise more fundamentally from the soundness of the internal procedures of cooperation themselves?

If the latter direction proves valid, then the task of civilizational governance is not merely to “increase force,” but to:

redesign procedures capable of generating cooperation, constraint, and dynamic balance from within the structure itself.

4. Artificial intelligence gives this question unprecedented urgency

In the past, errors within human cooperative structures could take decades or even generations to become visible and to be corrected.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing those conditions.

AI will amplify not only knowledge, productivity, and innovation, but also:

organizational capacity, information-control capacity, financial capacity, military capability, the capacity for deception, social mobilization, and the capacity of individuals and organizations to act.

Therefore, if humanity’s cooperative structures continue to be dominated primarily by:

competition for power, struggles over resources, mutual suspicion, zero-sum games, and balances of deterrence,

then what artificial intelligence first amplifies may not be civilization itself, but the existing structure.

This is why I continue to hope that humanity will seriously discuss the following question:

If artificial intelligence increases human capability one hundredfold or one thousandfold, while the structure of human social cooperation remains in a “jungle state,” are we gaining a thousandfold increase in the cooperative capabilities of civilization—or a thousandfold increase in the capabilities of jungle competition?

From the perspective of the Law of Procedural Determination, artificial intelligence itself is only an extraordinarily powerful new element.

Its ultimate nature and effect cannot be determined solely by that element itself.

They also depend on:

the procedures into which it enters, who controls it, the relationships it forms, the social structures in which it operates, and the kind of dynamic balance the overall system ultimately establishes.

This is why I propose that:

the stability of structures of social cooperation may constitute one of the foundational preconditions for the safe governance of advanced artificial intelligence.

IV. The Research Request I Hope This Background Note Will Actually Raise

I do not want the name “Law of Procedural Determination” to reduce the discussion to a simple question of whether a theory should be accepted or rejected.

What I truly wish to ask is something more open:

Can humanity re-examine its accumulated knowledge of nature, historical experience, social institutions, and the governance of artificial intelligence from the perspective of “procedure—relationship—structure—dynamic balance”?

If, through dialogue, it becomes apparent that a large number of seemingly different phenomena in nature, life, social institutions, human cooperation, and AI governance can indeed be coherently interpreted through this framework and can generate further testable judgments, then the hypothesis deserves continued study.

If not, then it should be made clear where and why it fails.

This is also what I understand genuine scientific and civilizational cooperation to mean:

Do not begin by judging who raised the question. Instead, allow the question itself to enter a procedure in which it can be discussed, criticized, and tested.

If there can be a platform for free, equal, and serious discussion, I do not believe it would necessarily take an extremely long time even to begin determining whether this hypothesis has significance.

Human history and present reality already provide an extraordinarily rich body of observational material.

If this perspective ultimately proves capable of helping humanity identify some common mechanism behind the repeated breakdown of social cooperation, then its more important significance may not lie in telling the world how one particular institution “should be designed.”

It may instead help humanity recover a more foundational standpoint from which to observe civilization:

from competing over outcomes, toward designing procedures;
from dependence on coercion, toward forming cooperative models;
from pursuing unilateral victory, toward seeking sustainable dynamic balance for the system as a whole.

This is precisely what I mean by:

Grasp the procedure. Build the model. Seek balance.

If humanity can rethink and reorganize the achievements of civilization from this more foundational level, perhaps only then will we be able to build a more stable, harmonious, and sustainable structure of social cooperation—one with sufficient capacity to carry the immense increase in civilizational power that artificial intelligence may bring.

— Jin Guyu

The above English text is from an online translation, followed by the original Chinese text.

關於“程序定質規律”的背景說明

一、“程序定質規律”的自然哲學視角

從人類迄今探索自然所取得的知識來看，我們能夠感知和認識的一切現象，都表現為某種運動、變化、相互作用及其結果。

如果把這些現象繼續向更基礎的層面追問，可以暫時從兩個因素來理解：

一是能量；
二是能量運動所形成的程序、秩序與關係過程。

人類目前尚未真正窮盡“宇宙能量本身究竟是什麼”這一終極問題。但是，無論最終的本體答案是什麼，人類面對任何能夠認識的對象，都可以在繼續追問中發現，所有對象都共同擁有同一個問題：

它是通過什麼樣的運動程序發生、聯繫、演化並形成現在這一結果的？

因此，在我看來，在人類尚不能直接把握宇宙終極本體之前，“程序”也許是我們能夠從不同認知對象中持續向下追索的最基礎的共同觀察維度之一。

也就是說，不論我們觀察的是自然現象、生命系統、社會組織、制度運行還是人工智能，雖然它們在表象上千差萬別，但都可以繼續追問：

· 構成它們的參與因素是什麼？

· 這些因素按照什麼順序發生作用？

· 通過什麼規則形成聯繫？

· 聯繫之後形成什麼結構？

· 這種結構又如何通過反饋、制約和調整保持或失去平衡？

從這一意義上說，我提出一個自然哲學上的判斷：

人類能夠認識的不同對象，或許存在一種共同的同一性觀察方向——即觀察能量、要素或主體通過什麼程序形成關係，並最終演化為什麼樣的結構和結果。

這就是“程序定質規律”最初的自然哲學出發點。

它並不是說人類已經知道宇宙的終極本體，而是提出：

如果我們希望從現象繼續走向本質，那麼研究“事物究竟是如何被程序化地組織和演化出來的”，也許是一個值得特別重視的第一性認知方向。

二、“程序定質規律”的主要內容和含義

“程序定質規律”是我根據長期觀察和思考提出的一個尚待檢驗的基礎性假說。

它最基本的命題是：

一個事物最終呈現出的性質、功能和結果，並不只取決於參與其中的構成要素本身，也取決於這些要素通過什麼程序發生聯繫、形成什麼樣的關繫結構，以及這種結構能否在持續互動中建立和維持適當的動態平衡。

進一步而言，我們通常所說的“構成要素本身”，如果繼續向其內部追問，它本身又可能是由更基礎的參與因素通過某種程序聯繫、結構組合和動態平衡形成的結果。

因此，這一思路可以不斷向下追問：

一個要素為什麼具有這種性質？
因為它內部的參與因素形成了某種結構。
這種結構為什麼如此形成？
因為這些因素按照某種程序發生聯繫。
這種結構為什麼能夠持續存在？
因為它在能量交換和相互作用中保持了某種動態平衡。

進而還可以審視：任何一個能被人類作為獨立認知對象主體所呈現給人類感知的特徵與性質，似乎就是這個主體內在程序組合動態平和結構需要為此穩定可持續性而需要開放做功來交換能量的獨特需求。所以同樣是純粹碳元素運動程序組合合作形成的動態平衡系統，一種程序組合合作模式可以給人類呈現出鑽石特質，另一種程序組合合作模式可以是石墨特質。

最終，我們是否可以得出這樣的結論，人類能知覺的任何可以獨立彰顯特質的認知對象，其穩定可持續性及特質彰顯，終極本質實質都因是宇宙能量運動產生程序才形成。所以程序，才是決定人類能知覺任何認知對象的根本要素？甚至就是唯一根本要素？那麼，由此探索得出的程序運行規律，是不是就是自然哲學的總綱，由此能不能將人類追究文明行為的共同本質特徵，總結為八個字：以序為綱，循序定度。

如果這一假說能夠成立，那麼所謂事物的“性質”，就不應只理解為預先固定在單獨要素中的某種屬性，也可能是在程序運行、關係形成和結構穩定的過程中被確定並表現出來的。

換言之：

程序形成關係，關係形成結構，結構形成模式，模式通過動態平衡維持自身，並在與外部交換和作用的過程中表現為我們所觀察到的性質、功能和結果。

這就是我所謂“程序定質”的核心含義。

按照這一思路，同樣的人、同樣的資源、同樣的知識和同樣的技術，如果被置於不同的程序、秩序和關繫結構中，就可能產生完全不同，甚至方向相反的結果。

例如：

同一種技術，可以成為改善生活、擴大合作的工具，也可以成為控制、欺騙和破壞的工具；

同一群人，在一種制度和互動程序中可以形成信任與長期合作，而在另一種關繫結構中卻可能陷入猜疑、零和競爭乃至相互傷害。

發生變化的未必首先是人、資源或技術本身，而可能首先是：

它們被怎樣組織、怎樣連接以及怎樣相互作用。

因此，理解任何複雜系統，僅僅問“它由什麼組成”是不夠的。

更重要的，還必須進一步追問：

這些要素按照什麼順序發生作用？
通過什麼規則建立關係？
這種關係形成了什麼模式？
不同力量如何產生反饋和制約？
這種結構如何維持平衡，又為什麼會失去平衡？

我認為，如果沿着這一方向層層追問，它至少可能構成一種非常簡約而具有普遍性的研究路徑：

從結果反向尋找結構，從結構尋找關係，從關係尋找程序，再從程序尋找動態平衡的形成機制。

由此，我把這一假說應用於文明和社會合作，認為人類文明的本質，可以被概括為九個字：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

“抓程序”，是尋找決定關係性質的關鍵程序；

“做模式”，是在程序基礎上形成能夠長期運行的合作結構；

“求平衡”，則是通過持續反饋、約束和調整，使這種結構保持可持續的動態穩定。

目前，“程序定質規律”並不是一個已經獲得現代科學體系證明的自然定律。

它仍然只是一個希望提交給不同學科和現實經驗共同檢驗的假說。

它是否成立，不應取決於提出者是誰，也不應取決於它聽起來是否宏大，而應取決於：

它能否被清晰定義，能否形成可以比較的判斷，能否允許反例存在，能否接受證偽，並最終在自然現象、複雜系統、社會合作、制度運行以及人工智能治理等領域獲得或失去解釋力。

三、“程序定質規律”的現實與歷史意義

1. 自然哲學的價值，往往首先在於改變人類觀察問題的方向

人類文明史上的許多重大進步，並不是最初因為人類掌握了更多細節，而是因為人類改變了觀察和組織問題的基本方式。

一旦真正抓住一個對象的基本結構和演化機制，對它的理解往往會由複雜走向簡約。

反過來說，當一個問題長期越來越複雜、越來越依賴外力控制，卻始終無法穩定解決時，也可能意味着我們對它的底層結構仍然認識不足。

從這個意義上看，人類社會合作就是一個典型問題。

人類已經創造出法律、國家、市場、民主、倫理、國際組織和大量治理制度，但創造和承載所有這些文明成果的基本條件——人類彼此如何形成穩定、可持續的合作關係——卻始終反覆出現斷裂。

文明建立，繼而衝突；

秩序形成，繼而失穩；

社會合作擴大，繼而進入權力集中、利益衝突、戰爭或制度崩解；

然後再重新建設。

如果這種循環持續了幾千年，那麼至少值得追問：

我們是否仍然沒有真正抓住“社會合作為什麼能夠穩定、又為什麼必然失穩”的底層機制？

人類及其文明本身也是自然演化的一部分。

因此，如果自然界存在某種具有普遍性的“程序—結構—平衡”規律，那麼人類社會不可能完全例外。

這也是為什麼，在今天這樣一個文明方向高度不確定的歷史時期，我認為“程序定質規律”值得被認真甄別：

它有可能提供的，並不是又一個具體政治方案，而是一個重新觀察文明結構的基礎視角。

2. 如果規律具有普遍性，它的驗證不一定首先依賴昂貴實驗

如果“程序定質規律”真正具有某種普遍性，那麼人類已有的大量行為和歷史經驗，本身都可能成為檢驗材料。

因為人類社會幾乎每天都在進行這樣的“自然實驗”：

同樣的人，在不同制度中為什麼表現不同？

同樣的資源，在不同治理結構中為什麼產生不同社會結果？

同樣的技術，為什麼既可以促進自由，也可以強化控制？

同樣宣稱維護穩定的制度，為什麼有時越加強控制反而越不穩定？

同樣的國家資源和組織能力，為什麼一種合作模式能夠釋放創造力，另一種模式卻不斷消耗內部信任？

這些現象都可以被重新描述為：

程序不同 → 關係不同 → 結構不同 → 平衡狀態不同 → 最終性質與結果不同。

如果大量彼此獨立的事實都可以支持這一結構，而且能夠進一步產生可以被反駁的預測，那麼這一假說才真正具有研究價值。

反之，如果大量事實無法由它解釋，或者存在清晰反例，也應當據此修改甚至放棄這一假說。

因此，我所希望的不是“全人類接受”，而是：

讓不同專業背景的人共同用自己最熟悉的事實來檢驗它。

3. 對文明而言，它可能意味着從“研究枝葉”轉向重新尋找“根系”

如果把文明比作一棵大樹，那麼今天人類已經擁有非常發達的枝葉：

經濟學、政治學、法律、自然科學、倫理學、金融、軍事學、公共管理、人工智能……

這些領域都擁有大量專業知識。

但這些知識之間的基礎連接仍然十分薄弱。

而真正創造和推動所有這些文明成果的，是人與人之間能夠持續合作。

也就是說，社會合作結構更像文明的樹幹；而更加普遍的自然演化規律，則可能相當於連接樹幹與根系的營養機制。

如果我們看不見這種連接，就只能在某一根樹枝出現裂紋時不斷加固這根樹枝。

在人類社會中，這種“外部加固”最典型的形式，就是不斷增加：

控制、強制、監督、懲罰、權力集中和威懾。

然而，這裡面存在一個深刻悖論：

人類為了維護文明合作，卻常常不得不用削弱自由合作的方式來維護合作。

控制越強，結構有時反而越脆；

不信任越多，監督成本越高；

外部強制越大，內部自願合作能力可能越弱。

於是，為了穩定而不斷增加的外力，最後反而成為新的不穩定來源。

這就像一根已經失去內部結構穩定性的樹枝，只能靠不斷增加外部捆綁維持。一旦外力超過結構承受限度，系統就會進入“脆斷”。

因此，我認為值得重新追問：

文明真正的穩定，究竟應當主要依賴越來越強的外部捆綁，還是應當更多來自合作結構內部程序本身的合理性？

如果後一方向成立，那麼文明治理的任務就不只是“加強力量”，而是：

重新設計能夠自然產生合作、約束和動態平衡的程序。

4. 人工智能使這個問題第一次具有了前所未有的緊迫性

過去，人類合作結構中的錯誤可以用幾十年甚至幾代人的時間暴露和修正。

但人工智能正在迅速改變這種條件。

AI不僅會放大知識、生產效率和創新能力，也會放大：

組織能力、信息控制能力、金融能力、軍事能力、欺騙能力、社會動員能力以及個人和組織實施行動的能力。

因此，如果人類本身的合作結構仍然主要處於：

權力競爭、資源爭奪、相互猜疑、零和博弈和威懾平衡之中，

那麼人工智能可能首先放大的，並不是文明，而是這種既有結構本身。

因此才產生我一直希望人類認真討論的問題：

如果人工智能把人類能力提高一百倍、一千倍，而人類社會合作結構仍然處於“叢林狀態”，那麼我們得到的是文明合作能力的一千倍增長，還是叢林競爭能力的一千倍增長？

從“程序定質規律”的視角看，人工智能本身只是一個極其強大的新要素。

真正決定它最終性質的，不可能只是這個要素本身。

還包括：

它進入什麼程序、被誰控制、形成什麼關係、進入什麼社會結構，以及整個系統最終形成什麼樣的動態平衡。

這也正是為什麼我提出：

社會合作結構的穩定性，可能構成高級人工智能安全治理的基礎性前提之一。

四、我希望這份背景說明真正提出的研究請求

我並不希望以“程序定質規律”這個名稱，使討論陷入“接受還是拒絕一個理論”的簡單爭論。

我真正希望提出的是一個更開放的問題：

能否先從“程序—關係—結構—動態平衡”這個方向，重新檢查人類已經積累的自然知識、歷史經驗、社會制度和人工智能治理問題？

如果在對話中能夠發現：

自然界、生命、社會制度、人類合作乃至AI治理中大量看似不同的現象，確實可以在這一結構下得到一致解釋，並產生進一步可驗證的判斷，那麼它就值得繼續研究。

如果不能，就應當明確指出它失敗在哪裡。

這也是我所理解的真正的科學和文明合作：

不是先判斷提出問題的人是誰，而是讓問題本身進入可討論、可批判、可驗證的程序。

如果有一個能夠自由、平等並且認真討論的平台，我相信，這一假說是否具有意義並不需要非常漫長的時間才能開始判斷。

因為人類全部歷史和現實，本身已經提供了極其豐富的觀察材料。

如果最終證明這一視角確實能夠幫助人類看清社會合作反覆崩解的某種共同機制，那麼它更重要的意義，也許不是告訴世界某一種具體制度“應該怎樣設計”，而是幫助人類重新找到一個更加基礎的觀察位置：

從爭奪結果，轉向設計程序；
從依賴強制，轉向形成合作模式；
從追求單方勝利，轉向尋找系統可持續的動態平衡。

這也正是：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

如果人類能夠在這一更基礎的層面重新認識和組織已有文明成果，我們或許才有可能建立一種更加穩定、和諧和可持續的社會合作結構，並使這種結構擁有足夠的承載能力，去面對人工智能為文明帶來的巨大力量。

——金穀雨

    上述文件提出的課題，所以值得每一個人類關注，是因為提出的程序定質規律，如果真的就是比熵增定律更本質的宇宙規律，那麼就是人類在認知什麼是宇宙能量本質之前，應當儘快使人人能明晰而抓住的宇宙真相總綱。同時也說明這個課題，全面全層次關及人類個人所有生活細節與社會合作所有演繹。尤其在人類茫然不知文明該向何處走的時候，最好能選擇先來予以甄別。人類只有先將自己的思維模式底層支撐夯實在宇宙本質真相上，才能有力量去支撐人工智能帶來的巨大能量。否則，人類繼續像之前每次科技進步那樣去茫然參與狂歡，很可能因人類社會合作結構完全無能支撐人工智能產生的能量，這次就成為人類滅亡前的狂歡。很多人類精英都因已有明顯感覺而提出了警示。