《致全球每个人的信》是想呼吁全人类关注讨论人类所有不顺可能全都源于人类把追求文明的方向弄反了

——特别题记。本文是放在世界信息海洋中的重要漂流瓶：呼吁联合国等国际各种人类社会合作组织与各国政府以及国际各媒体都能支持来尽快搭建一个能全球对话的平台以讨论这样的主题，即为什么自古以来时时导引每个人类一辈子所有行为的物质概念必须彻底予以彻底剔除，而后颠覆性地替代为应抓准的那真正一直导引文明的总纲，这是涉及整个人类生死存亡的大事。

——作者：金谷雨

本信希望每一个人都关注，所以用词遣句力求以雅俗共通。

本人一个田野老夫，尚须忙于一日三餐，却不顾身份，非要坚持给中共中央年年屡屡写信，且连年不断，一写二十多年。见从未被理会，又写系列《致全球每一个人的信》和相关文章，设法传递到一些中文网站论坛。且向联合国发起的人工智能全球对话活动，发出申请《关于联合国人工智能全球对话是否能将“社会合作结构的稳定性为构成高级AI安全治理的前提”课题列入对话主题提案》（该提案已经于2026.8.8发联合国秘书处2026年联系邮箱：aidialogue@un.org，），同时向各相关研究机构和智库写信建议关注这个课题，还写信给各国政要和一些媒体，寻求精英给予支持.......。这一切，都是因为本人将履经经历的信息综合后认为，人类已经有条件提升认知而觉悟，来实现不再互斗互害而都能顺畅可持续地和谐合作的目标。这个目标的实现，意味着每一个人来到人间，都能一生顺畅、轻松地享受幸福的一生。

将我获得所有信息综合后得出的结论，予以简单说就是，人类比动物更善于合作才创造了文明迄今，每个人一生都从保障安全生存为基础追求自己认为该实现的人生价值。但这期间人类所有的不顺，全都因为把唯一能给予保障安全与追求价值实现的方向完全弄反了。

人类初睁眼睛，将看到的各种认知对象命名为物质，而通过五官直接有了拥有物质的满足感，就一直误以为，先要拥“有”，人生旅程的程序才会“顺”。实际上，人类在现实宇宙能觉知的一切演绎现象，都是按照程序“顺了”而能合作才组合成一个“有”的模式来演绎的。胶球的发现，也许能启迪人类进一步明确，我们理解的物质，本质上是宇宙能量运动产生程序形成组合合作模式的程序演绎表形，物质，不是这个世界真相的底层支撑，只是演绎表象一部分，是极其杂乱的不能被定位的幻象词汇，人类以之为生活目标，就陷入了杂乱幻化表形陷阱，而难于辨清真相。我所能看到的一切，因为在演绎底层上都遵循着“顺了才会有而不是有了就能顺”的规律，所以我提出了宇宙所有演绎现象必然要共同遵循的本质规律是程序定质规律的假说。并且由此推论出，像宇宙能量除了开放和做功外还必须形成程序组合动态平衡才能逆熵一样，文明的本质与标准就九个字，“抓程序、做模式、求平衡。”人类实现文明的具体路径就八个字，“以序为纲、循序定度。”因此，人类的所有乱象都来源于不知道想做好任何事都要先抓准、抓稳程序，常导致程序错乱而使应精准定位的法度被错位，造成事实与是非的判断都似是而非糊涂化，资源便被错置垃圾化。至今为止，完全不懂抓程序是做事前提的，都在茫然随波逐流；不同程度悟到抓程序做事但不知要做模式的，都深陷在人人绝顶聪明的投机式愚蠢陷阱中而乱哄哄你方唱罢我登场，即使学习别人的文明成果也陷于东施效颦；少数清楚知道抓程序、做模式但悟不透求平衡的，在整个人类社会物质概念为基础的文化意识生态洪流的推搡下，不能透彻理解所有价值实现的方式都必须通过求平衡实现的，常常被整个社会绝顶聪明的价值取向带歪........。这导致创造与维持人类文明的人类社会合作的程序模式结构，其无论如何做顶层设计，都必然逐渐会被人类逆宇宙本质而动的错误价值追求方向形成的思维模式所推动的行为机制，逐步带偏而肢解，导致任何社会合作模式都会最终崩塌。这个过程，在和平年代就体现为互斗互害，蚁穴般摧毁社会合作模式导致大规模崩塌后，人类就陷入战争重组。人类文明已经如此反复轮回了几千年。因此，从认知程序定质规律开始认知宇宙本质真相，从而遵循文明标准，来更新升级处在人类社会合作结构底层的人类思维模式，从夯实社会合作结构底层开始重构人类文明框架，是人类唯一能走出丛林走向可持续和谐合作高级文明的必由之路。

人类要彻底走出丛林实现可持续和谐合作高级文明，也即世界永久和平，非常容易，只要剔除人类思维模式的物质习惯视角的梗阻即可。因为人类所有的文明成果，包括自然科学成果与物质财富和社会合作财富，都能实证是按照程序“顺了才会有”的方向才能取得的。人类所有的不顺，都是因为误认为而执迷于“有了就会顺”所造成的。因此，只要人类醒悟后，改变看财富与价值视角，从程序视角去审视，程序定质规律是否能成立的依据，就能昭然彰显出是存在于人类从日常所有行为到整个社会行为中的，全方位全时空都是证据。正因如此，我提出的文明本质真相与标准，是否真这样，只需要能有一个好好说话的平台，来触动全人类都来关注甄别这个课题，就很容易清晰。

但要朝这个方向做努力也很难。因为人类现在思维模式及其文明框架的形成，全都构建在对物质财富追求的基础上，且被人类五官能直接感知而紧紧束缚着。人类能够有文明成果，只是因一些人能在人类五官追求与宇宙本质方向相反形成的冲突中，冲破五官感知边界而茫然抓住了程序视角形成抽象思维模式，才导引了文明成果的诞生。

如果这一切是确切的，那么显然，人类的正确努力方向，是人人都要从提升自己观察与判断价值的站立基础开始，从杂乱不稳定的表形升级到宇宙本质真相为基础，来开抬升整个人类社会合作的视角与视野，才能看清当前世界诡谲风云的本质及冲破风云遮蔽而走向文明阳光的出路与方向。这里，人类各种社会合作组织，才可能具有在最短的时间内最直接发挥推动力最好条件，来改变整个人类文明框架几千年形成的真假颠倒式运转惯性方向。

因此，甄别我提出的宇宙本质规律是程序定质规律的假说，是全面颠覆现在人类生活习惯的大事，是因所有人做所有事都离不开而如空气般熟悉，也就最不容易被发现但却直击所有事本质的大事。特别在当前谁也说不清文明该向哪个方向走时，人类不妨先都来看看这里说的事。是不是人类不该再枉顾左右，应选择向上，抬升人类社会合作站立基础。

当我认为人类存在这样的关及决定着所有人做所有事成败乃至生死的事，自然会想办法说出来请全人类来甄别。但现实中遇到三个问题。

一个是我住的环境，是一个几千年来特别突出呈现为“你越正确就越得罪人”的社会生态（台湾教授曾仕强总结中国文化生态时说的话），所以可能今后不能再为此说什么了。我因二十多年给中共中央写信，也没有叩开能好好说话的大门，便从窗缝中传递发声而在网络上发布《致全球每一个人的信》，尽管因涉及自然哲学的缘故而无多少人关注，却还是有一只要把窗缝扣死的手伸过来了。

二是我近期连续两次因心脏问题被急救车送医院急诊，更感到，既然认为这是对每一个人都有根本好处的事，就应再度发文呼吁一次。

三是本是草根，不似大树。

综而思鉴，再写这篇文章，将给联合国呈报课题中的一个文件：解释提出该课题所依据的理论基础“程序定质规律”的研究思考背景资料，发在这里，希望所有的草根都来加持“野火烧不尽且春风吹又生”的巨大能量，将这里的信息传递给全人类，而催生能撼动世界的人类精英。

给联合国和各类人类合作组织以及媒体发的英文与中文双语本，原样粘贴在这里。希望这漂流在世界信息海洋的漂流瓶，能有被开启的那一天，或许我各方面条件许可，再来与所有想对话的人共同甄别。

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:

以序为纲，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.

关于“程序定质规律”的背景说明

一、“程序定质规律”的自然哲学视角

从人类迄今探索自然所取得的知识来看，我们能够感知和认识的一切现象，都表现为某种运动、变化、相互作用及其结果。

如果把这些现象继续向更基础的层面追问，可以暂时从两个因素来理解：

一是能量；
二是能量运动所形成的程序、秩序与关系过程。

人类目前尚未真正穷尽“宇宙能量本身究竟是什么”这一终极问题。但是，无论最终的本体答案是什么，人类面对任何能够认识的对象，都可以在继续追问中发现，所有对象都共同拥有同一个问题：

它是通过什么样的运动程序发生、联系、演化并形成现在这一结果的？

因此，在我看来，在人类尚不能直接把握宇宙终极本体之前，“程序”也许是我们能够从不同认知对象中持续向下追索的最基础的共同观察维度之一。

也就是说，不论我们观察的是自然现象、生命系统、社会组织、制度运行还是人工智能，虽然它们在表象上千差万别，但都可以继续追问：

· 构成它们的参与因素是什么？

· 这些因素按照什么顺序发生作用？

· 通过什么规则形成联系？

· 联系之后形成什么结构？

· 这种结构又如何通过反馈、制约和调整保持或失去平衡？

从这一意义上说，我提出一个自然哲学上的判断：

人类能够认识的不同对象，或许存在一种共同的同一性观察方向——即观察能量、要素或主体通过什么程序形成关系，并最终演化为什么样的结构和结果。

这就是“程序定质规律”最初的自然哲学出发点。

它并不是说人类已经知道宇宙的终极本体，而是提出：

如果我们希望从现象继续走向本质，那么研究“事物究竟是如何被程序化地组织和演化出来的”，也许是一个值得特别重视的第一性认知方向。

二、“程序定质规律”的主要内容和含义

“程序定质规律”是我根据长期观察和思考提出的一个尚待检验的基础性假说。

它最基本的命题是：

一个事物最终呈现出的性质、功能和结果，并不只取决于参与其中的构成要素本身，也取决于这些要素通过什么程序发生联系、形成什么样的关系结构，以及这种结构能否在持续互动中建立和维持适当的动态平衡。

进一步而言，我们通常所说的“构成要素本身”，如果继续向其内部追问，它本身又可能是由更基础的参与因素通过某种程序联系、结构组合和动态平衡形成的结果。

因此，这一思路可以不断向下追问：

一个要素为什么具有这种性质？
因为它内部的参与因素形成了某种结构。
这种结构为什么如此形成？
因为这些因素按照某种程序发生联系。
这种结构为什么能够持续存在？
因为它在能量交换和相互作用中保持了某种动态平衡。

进而还可以审视：任何一个能被人类作为独立认知对象主体所呈现给人类感知的特征与性质，似乎就是这个主体内在程序组合动态平和结构需要为此稳定可持续性而需要开放做功来交换能量的独特需求。所以同样是纯粹碳元素运动程序组合合作形成的动态平衡系统，一种程序组合合作模式可以给人类呈现出钻石特质，另一种程序组合合作模式可以是石墨特质。

最终，我们是否可以得出这样的结论，人类能知觉的任何可以独立彰显特质的认知对象，其稳定可持续性及特质彰显，终极本质实质都因是宇宙能量运动产生程序才形成。所以程序，才是决定人类能知觉任何认知对象的根本要素？甚至就是唯一根本要素？那么，由此探索得出的程序运行规律，是不是就是自然哲学的总纲，由此能不能将人类追究文明行为的共同本质特征，总结为八个字：以序为纲，循序定度。

如果这一假说能够成立，那么所谓事物的“性质”，就不应只理解为预先固定在单独要素中的某种属性，也可能是在程序运行、关系形成和结构稳定的过程中被确定并表现出来的。

换言之：

程序形成关系，关系形成结构，结构形成模式，模式通过动态平衡维持自身，并在与外部交换和作用的过程中表现为我们所观察到的性质、功能和结果。

这就是我所谓“程序定质”的核心含义。

按照这一思路，同样的人、同样的资源、同样的知识和同样的技术，如果被置于不同的程序、秩序和关系结构中，就可能产生完全不同，甚至方向相反的结果。

例如：

同一种技术，可以成为改善生活、扩大合作的工具，也可以成为控制、欺骗和破坏的工具；

同一群人，在一种制度和互动程序中可以形成信任与长期合作，而在另一种关系结构中却可能陷入猜疑、零和竞争乃至相互伤害。

发生变化的未必首先是人、资源或技术本身，而可能首先是：

它们被怎样组织、怎样连接以及怎样相互作用。

因此，理解任何复杂系统，仅仅问“它由什么组成”是不够的。

更重要的，还必须进一步追问：

这些要素按照什么顺序发生作用？
通过什么规则建立关系？
这种关系形成了什么模式？
不同力量如何产生反馈和制约？
这种结构如何维持平衡，又为什么会失去平衡？

我认为，如果沿着这一方向层层追问，它至少可能构成一种非常简约而具有普遍性的研究路径：

从结果反向寻找结构，从结构寻找关系，从关系寻找程序，再从程序寻找动态平衡的形成机制。

由此，我把这一假说应用于文明和社会合作，认为人类文明的本质，可以被概括为九个字：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

“抓程序”，是寻找决定关系性质的关键程序；

“做模式”，是在程序基础上形成能够长期运行的合作结构；

“求平衡”，则是通过持续反馈、约束和调整，使这种结构保持可持续的动态稳定。

目前，“程序定质规律”并不是一个已经获得现代科学体系证明的自然定律。

它仍然只是一个希望提交给不同学科和现实经验共同检验的假说。

它是否成立，不应取决于提出者是谁，也不应取决于它听起来是否宏大，而应取决于：

它能否被清晰定义，能否形成可以比较的判断，能否允许反例存在，能否接受证伪，并最终在自然现象、复杂系统、社会合作、制度运行以及人工智能治理等领域获得或失去解释力。

三、“程序定质规律”的现实与历史意义

1. 自然哲学的价值，往往首先在于改变人类观察问题的方向

人类文明史上的许多重大进步，并不是最初因为人类掌握了更多细节，而是因为人类改变了观察和组织问题的基本方式。

一旦真正抓住一个对象的基本结构和演化机制，对它的理解往往会由复杂走向简约。

反过来说，当一个问题长期越来越复杂、越来越依赖外力控制，却始终无法稳定解决时，也可能意味着我们对它的底层结构仍然认识不足。

从这个意义上看，人类社会合作就是一个典型问题。

人类已经创造出法律、国家、市场、民主、伦理、国际组织和大量治理制度，但创造和承载所有这些文明成果的基本条件——人类彼此如何形成稳定、可持续的合作关系——却始终反复出现断裂。

文明建立，继而冲突；

秩序形成，继而失稳；

社会合作扩大，继而进入权力集中、利益冲突、战争或制度崩解；

然后再重新建设。

如果这种循环持续了几千年，那么至少值得追问：

我们是否仍然没有真正抓住“社会合作为什么能够稳定、又为什么必然失稳”的底层机制？

人类及其文明本身也是自然演化的一部分。

因此，如果自然界存在某种具有普遍性的“程序—结构—平衡”规律，那么人类社会不可能完全例外。

这也是为什么，在今天这样一个文明方向高度不确定的历史时期，我认为“程序定质规律”值得被认真甄别：

它有可能提供的，并不是又一个具体政治方案，而是一个重新观察文明结构的基础视角。

2. 如果规律具有普遍性，它的验证不一定首先依赖昂贵实验

如果“程序定质规律”真正具有某种普遍性，那么人类已有的大量行为和历史经验，本身都可能成为检验材料。

因为人类社会几乎每天都在进行这样的“自然实验”：

同样的人，在不同制度中为什么表现不同？

同样的资源，在不同治理结构中为什么产生不同社会结果？

同样的技术，为什么既可以促进自由，也可以强化控制？

同样宣称维护稳定的制度，为什么有时越加强控制反而越不稳定？

同样的国家资源和组织能力，为什么一种合作模式能够释放创造力，另一种模式却不断消耗内部信任？

这些现象都可以被重新描述为：

程序不同 → 关系不同 → 结构不同 → 平衡状态不同 → 最终性质与结果不同。

如果大量彼此独立的事实都可以支持这一结构，而且能够进一步产生可以被反驳的预测，那么这一假说才真正具有研究价值。

反之，如果大量事实无法由它解释，或者存在清晰反例，也应当据此修改甚至放弃这一假说。

因此，我所希望的不是“全人类接受”，而是：

让不同专业背景的人共同用自己最熟悉的事实来检验它。

3. 对文明而言，它可能意味着从“研究枝叶”转向重新寻找“根系”

如果把文明比作一棵大树，那么今天人类已经拥有非常发达的枝叶：

经济学、政治学、法律、自然科学、伦理学、金融、军事学、公共管理、人工智能……

这些领域都拥有大量专业知识。

但这些知识之间的基础连接仍然十分薄弱。

而真正创造和推动所有这些文明成果的，是人与人之间能够持续合作。

也就是说，社会合作结构更像文明的树干；而更加普遍的自然演化规律，则可能相当于连接树干与根系的营养机制。

如果我们看不见这种连接，就只能在某一根树枝出现裂纹时不断加固这根树枝。

在人类社会中，这种“外部加固”最典型的形式，就是不断增加：

控制、强制、监督、惩罚、权力集中和威慑。

然而，这里面存在一个深刻悖论：

人类为了维护文明合作，却常常不得不用削弱自由合作的方式来维护合作。

控制越强，结构有时反而越脆；

不信任越多，监督成本越高；

外部强制越大，内部自愿合作能力可能越弱。

于是，为了稳定而不断增加的外力，最后反而成为新的不稳定来源。

这就像一根已经失去内部结构稳定性的树枝，只能靠不断增加外部捆绑维持。一旦外力超过结构承受限度，系统就会进入“脆断”。

因此，我认为值得重新追问：

文明真正的稳定，究竟应当主要依赖越来越强的外部捆绑，还是应当更多来自合作结构内部程序本身的合理性？

如果后一方向成立，那么文明治理的任务就不只是“加强力量”，而是：

重新设计能够自然产生合作、约束和动态平衡的程序。

4. 人工智能使这个问题第一次具有了前所未有的紧迫性

过去，人类合作结构中的错误可以用几十年甚至几代人的时间暴露和修正。

但人工智能正在迅速改变这种条件。

AI不仅会放大知识、生产效率和创新能力，也会放大：

组织能力、信息控制能力、金融能力、军事能力、欺骗能力、社会动员能力以及个人和组织实施行动的能力。

因此，如果人类本身的合作结构仍然主要处于：

权力竞争、资源争夺、相互猜疑、零和博弈和威慑平衡之中，

那么人工智能可能首先放大的，并不是文明，而是这种既有结构本身。

因此才产生我一直希望人类认真讨论的问题：

如果人工智能把人类能力提高一百倍、一千倍，而人类社会合作结构仍然处于“丛林状态”，那么我们得到的是文明合作能力的一千倍增长，还是丛林竞争能力的一千倍增长？

从“程序定质规律”的视角看，人工智能本身只是一个极其强大的新要素。

真正决定它最终性质的，不可能只是这个要素本身。

还包括：

它进入什么程序、被谁控制、形成什么关系、进入什么社会结构，以及整个系统最终形成什么样的动态平衡。

这也正是为什么我提出：

社会合作结构的稳定性，可能构成高级人工智能安全治理的基础性前提之一。

四、我希望这份背景说明真正提出的研究请求

我并不希望以“程序定质规律”这个名称，使讨论陷入“接受还是拒绝一个理论”的简单争论。

我真正希望提出的是一个更开放的问题：

能否先从“程序—关系—结构—动态平衡”这个方向，重新检查人类已经积累的自然知识、历史经验、社会制度和人工智能治理问题？

如果在对话中能够发现：

自然界、生命、社会制度、人类合作乃至AI治理中大量看似不同的现象，确实可以在这一结构下得到一致解释，并产生进一步可验证的判断，那么它就值得继续研究。

如果不能，就应当明确指出它失败在哪里。

这也是我所理解的真正的科学和文明合作：

不是先判断提出问题的人是谁，而是让问题本身进入可讨论、可批判、可验证的程序。

如果有一个能够自由、平等并且认真讨论的平台，我相信，这一假说是否具有意义并不需要非常漫长的时间才能开始判断。

因为人类全部历史和现实，本身已经提供了极其丰富的观察材料。

如果最终证明这一视角确实能够帮助人类看清社会合作反复崩解的某种共同机制，那么它更重要的意义，也许不是告诉世界某一种具体制度“应该怎样设计”，而是帮助人类重新找到一个更加基础的观察位置：

从争夺结果，转向设计程序；
从依赖强制，转向形成合作模式；
从追求单方胜利，转向寻找系统可持续的动态平衡。

这也正是：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

如果人类能够在这一更基础的层面重新认识和组织已有文明成果，我们或许才有可能建立一种更加稳定、和谐和可持续的社会合作结构，并使这种结构拥有足够的承载能力，去面对人工智能为文明带来的巨大力量。

——金谷雨

    上述文件提出的课题，所以值得每一个人类关注，是因为提出的程序定质规律，如果真的就是比熵增定律更本质的宇宙规律，那么就是人类在认知什么是宇宙能量本质之前，应当尽快使人人能明晰而抓住的宇宙真相总纲。同时也说明这个课题，全面全层次关及人类个人所有生活细节与社会合作所有演绎。尤其在人类茫然不知文明该向何处走的时候，最好能选择先来予以甄别。人类只有先将自己的思维模式底层支撑夯实在宇宙本质真相上，才能有力量去支撑人工智能带来的巨大能量。否则，人类继续像之前每次科技进步那样去茫然参与狂欢，很可能因人类社会合作结构完全无能支撑人工智能产生的能量，这次就成为人类灭亡前的狂欢。很多人类精英都因已有明显感觉而提出了警示。