Xiangbin Zhao

The fundamental role of probability is not to represent “how large a possibility is,” but to organize already-formed Laws into directions of future continuation. Only once there are directions can Intention have anything to be directed toward. The Probability Group-Form of On Self-Manifestation asks a question prior to numerical probability: how does a real system form multiple directions of future continuation from its own history, and how does its own structure bear the relative-generation relation among those directions? Every actual physical execution settles into one actual occurrence; multiple outcomes do not stand there waiting to be sampled. Probability therefore does not begin with “possibility,” but with Laws formed through history. Through prolonged interaction between system and environment, different paths undergo disturbance, feedback, reward and punishment, forming sedimentation, familiar paths and stable continuation structures. Paths capable of bearing later continuation obtain Law qualification and become probability dimensions. Probability then organizes multiple such Law-bearing directions within one and the same continuation question, while the organization itself bears the relative-generation relation among the dimensions. A numerical probability is only a read-out of this structure once it has been recognized and represented. It follows that observing probability is not the same as finding Probability, and outcome-bearing is not rate-bearing (Outcome-bearing ≠ Rate-bearing). A stable 70:30 distribution shows only that outcomes occur in a 70:30 ratio; it does not identify what structure inside the system generates and bears that ratio. Probability research thereby moves from “What is the probability?” to “What physical organization makes this system possess this Probability?”—from statistical description to generative mechanism. The Probability Group-Form further distinguishes Probability, ProbabilityAct and ProbabilityDyn: the holding of Probability, its current action, and its cross-time dynamics. It treats qualification, inversion, determination, limit, source, dynamics, construction, reachability and stability separately. Zero rate, equal rates, complete determinism, or a numerical rate that is currently unreadable do not by themselves eliminate Probability. The real boundary is structural: whether multiple Law-bearing continuation directions still exist, whether they belong to one and the same continuation question, and whether their relative generation is still borne by the organization itself. New probability dimensions may form, old dimensions may exit, and both rate relations and rate-bearing structures may change. Not only probability values, but future directions themselves can therefore be generated and rewritten by history. This makes probability a mechanistic problem shared by physics, neuroscience, cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Physics must distinguish the unity of each actual execution from the multi-directional structure formed across history; neuroscience must distinguish measuring a probability distribution from finding the neural organization that generates it; cognitive science thereby gains an intermediate layer between experiential history and directed behavior; and artificial intelligence must distinguish “computing probability” from “forming future directions through its own history.” Its most important consequence is that Probability provides a genuine directional structure for Intention. A Law answers: “How does this already-formed path replay?” Probability answers: “What already-formed paths are there, and how are they generated relative to one another?” Only after multiple real directions have formed does a new question become physically meaningful: toward which dimension? Probability provides the dimensions toward which continuation can proceed; Intention then selects, biases and directs continuation among them. Thus: Environmental action → actual occurrence → sedimentation → Law → probability dimension → Probability organization → selection and bias → Intention → action. History sediments into Law; Probability organizes Laws into directions; Intention makes the system proceed along one of them. The Probability Group-Form therefore ultimately asks not merely, “What is the probability of an outcome?” but a more fundamental question: What physical organization makes a system genuinely possess directions toward its own future?

概率的根本作用，不是表示“可能性有多大”，而是把已经形成的律组织成未来的方向；正因为有了方向，意向才有“向”可言。 《自显论·概率组式》追问一个比概率值更早的问题：一个真实系统，怎样从自己的历史中形成多个未来续行方向，并由自身结构承担这些方向之间的相对生成关系？ 一次真实物理发生始终只落定于一处，并不存在多个结果同时等待抽取。概率因此不从“可能性”开始，而从历史形成的律开始。系统与环境长期相互作用，不同路径经扰动、反馈与奖惩形成沉积、熟径和稳定续行结构；能够承担后来续行的路径取得律资格，成为概率维。概率再把多个这样的 Law-bearing 方向组织到同一续行问题中，并由该组织自身承担诸维之间的相对生成关系；概率值只是这一结构被识出和表示后的读数。 由此，观察到概率不等于找到了概率，结果承担也不等于率承担（Outcome-bearing ≠ Rate-bearing）。稳定的 70:30 只能说明结果呈现 70:30，不能说明系统内部什么结构产生并承担了这个比例。概率研究因此从“概率是多少”推进到“什么物理组织使系统拥有这份概率”，从统计描述进入生成机制。 《概率组式》进一步区分 Probability、ProbabilityAct 与 ProbabilityDyn，即概率的成立、当前作用和跨时变化，并处理其资格、反演、判定、极限、来源、动力、构造、可达与稳定。零率、等率、完全确定或概率值暂不可读，都不自动消灭概率；真正的边界在于：是否仍有多个由律承担的续行方向，它们是否属于同一续行问题，以及相对生成是否仍由该组织自身承担。新的概率维可以形成，旧维可以退出，率关系和承担结构也可以变化——不只是概率值会变，未来方向本身也可以由历史生成和改写。 这使概率成为物理学、神经科学、认知科学和人工智能共同面对的机制问题：物理学需要区分单次现实归一与跨次形成的多方向结构；神经科学需要区分测得概率分布与找到产生概率的神经组织；认知科学由此获得从经验历史到定向行为的中间层；人工智能则需要区分“会计算概率”与“能够通过自身历史形成未来方向”。 而其最重要的后果，是概率为意向提供了真正的方向结构。一条律回答“这条路怎样复”，概率回答“有哪些已成之路，以及它们怎样相对生成”；当多个真实方向形成以后，“向哪一维”才成为一个真实问题。概率提供可向之维，意向进一步对其中发生择、偏和定向。 因此： 环境作用 → 实际发生 → 沉积 → 律 → 概率维 → 概率组织 → 择与偏 → 意向 → 行动。 历史沉积成律，概率把律组织成方向，意向使系统向其中而行。 《概率组式》最终提出的，不只是“一个结果的概率是多少”，而是一个更基础的问题： 什么物理组织，使一个系统真正拥有了未来方向？

Once a regularity has formed within a physical system, what makes it genuinely active at a given moment? How can its degree of formation be compared? How does it begin, continue, increase, decrease, cease, or migrate across time? Can a specified dynamical condition be reached from a given state? When do two already established regularities genuinely interact? And how can an organization composed of multiple regularities persist, fail, undergo substitution, and recover? The Law\-Dynamics Group\-Form develops a formal theory of how established regularities actually operate\. Its starting point is not an abstract rule suspended outside the physical system, but a regularity already borne by concrete structure\. The problem is then to determine how that regularity enters current operation, acts, changes across time, contributes to the dynamics of other regularities, and participates in persistent multi\-regularity organization\. The thirteen form\-texts constitute five connected but non\-substitutable theoretical domains\. First, the framework separates the standing of a regularity from its current action\. A Law may already be established without acting at every moment\. Necessary and sufficient directions for Law\-action are developed separately, together with a multidimensional Degree regime for comparing the extent to which an established Law has been sedimented, replayed, made available, and dynamically established\. Second, cross\-temporal change is made into a formal dynamical object\. LawDyn is not defined as a mere difference between measurements at two times, but as an actual change of the same Law across a lawful trajectory segment\. This permits onset, continuation, cessation, increase, decrease, and migration to be distinguished, followed by a mathematical system, a reachability regime for dynamical targets, and a Sedimentation\-Field operating substrate in which these structures can actually run\. Third, the framework examines continuity across occurrences and historical source\. Identity of physical roots does not automatically determine Law\-side pairing, and Law\-side pairing does not by itself settle the general criterion of Law identity\. The theory separately asks which actual segment of history bore the first establishment of a Law and how far source can be determined when more than one historical explanation remains admissible\. Fourth, a theory of direct event\-level interaction between Laws is established\. Co\-presence, shared medium, correlated change, and generic physical influence do not by themselves constitute inter\-Law interaction\. Direct interaction requires that an already established duty of the source Law actually enter the target Law’s dynamical event and make an event\-level contribution conforming to that duty\. Necessary structure, mathematical representation, and a sufficient direction are developed separately\. Fifth, the analysis is extended from individual Laws and pairwise interaction to multi\-Law organization\. Multiple Laws may bear different node roles while repeated event\-level interactions bear interaction roles\. Such an organization may then face member loss, replacement of bearers, changes in degree, interruption of interaction, and recovery\. The framework therefore distinguishes fixed from substitutable realization, single trajectories from trajectory families, persistence from recovery, and ordinary stability from stronger guarantees over lawful successor trajectories\. The theory applies to physical systems in which regularities are formed through experience and borne by physical structure\. In neuroscience, this includes experience\-dependent plasticity, neural dynamics, learned stable pathways, current activation, functional migration, circuit interaction, and the stability and recovery of multi\-circuit organization\. In cognitive science, it bears on how experience, habit, memory, perception, and behavioral organization use established patterns to structure later activity\. In artificial intelligence, it provides a formal basis for distinguishing trained structure, runtime action, degree, cross\-temporal dynamics, migration, interaction, and multi\-structure stability rather than identifying the mere presence of parameters with current operation\. In physics and complex\-systems research, it advances regularity from static description to a dynamical object that can be physically borne, change along trajectories, contribute to events, interact with other regularities, and participate in stable organization\. The central question is therefore not only what a regularity is, but a more explicitly dynamical one: **how does an established regularity actually enter the running of a world?**

一条规律一旦在一个物理系统中形成，什么才算它此刻真正正在作用？它的形成程度如何比较？它怎样在时间中启动、持续、增强、减弱、停止或迁移？从给定状态出发，某种动力变化能否到达？两条已经形成的规律何时真正发生直接交互？多条规律共同构成的组织，又怎样保持、失效、替代与恢复？ 《律动力组式》围绕这些问题，建立一套关于“已形成规律如何真实运行”的形式理论。其出发点不是把规律看作悬置于物理系统之外的抽象规则，而是研究规律一旦由具体结构承担以后，怎样进入当前、发生作用、跨时间改变、影响其他规律，并组成能够持续存在的多律组织。 全组十三篇式文形成五个彼此连接而不可互相替代的理论区域。 第一，区分“规律已经成立”与“规律此刻正在作用”。一条律即使已经形成，也并不意味着它在每个时刻都正在承担当前事件。本组分别给出律作用的必要方向与充分方向，并建立多维 Degree 制度，用来比较规律在沉积、复走、承担和当前可用性上的形成程度。 第二，把规律的跨时变化正式建立为动力对象。LawDyn 不是两个时刻读数的简单相减，而是同一律在合法轨迹段中的实际变化。由此可以区分启动、持续、停止、增强、减弱与迁移，并进一步建立其数理系统、动力目标的可达制度以及能够实际运行这些结构的沉积场运行基底。 第三，处理规律跨 occurrence 的连续性与历史来源。物理承载根相同，不自动意味着律层配对相同；律层配对相同，也不能直接代替一般的规律身份判定。本组进一步追问：一条律第一次真正成立时，究竟是哪一段实际历史承担了它的形成，并在来源存在多解时给出可判边界。 第四，建立律与律之间的直接事件级交互理论。两条规律同时存在、共享介质、相关变化，甚至发生一般物理影响，都不足以自动构成律际交互。只有当来源律以自身已经成立的职责实际进入目标律的动力事件并产生符合该职责的事件贡献时，直接律际交互才取得资格。本组分别建立其必要结构、数理表示与充分闭合。 第五，把研究从单律与两律推进到多律组织。一组规律可以分别承担不同节点职责，并通过反复兑现的事件级交互形成组织。该组织随后可能遭遇成员退出、承担者替换、作用程度变化、交互中断和重新恢复。本组因此区分固定实现与可替代实现、单轨迹与轨迹族、保持与恢复，并进一步区分持续稳定、恢复能力以及更强的全合法轨迹保证。 这一理论同时适用于由经验形成并以物理结构承担规律的系统。对神经科学而言，它直接涉及经验依赖可塑性、神经动力学、学习后形成的稳定通路、当前激活、功能迁移、回路交互以及多回路组织的稳定与恢复；对认知科学而言，它涉及经验、习惯、记忆、感知和行为结构如何由既成模式持续组织后来活动；对人工智能而言，它可用于区分训练后形成的结构、运行时作用、程度变化、跨时动力、迁移、交互及多结构稳定，而不把参数存在本身等同于当前作用；对物理学与复杂系统研究而言，它把“规律”从静态描述推进到可由具体结构承担、可在轨迹中发生动力变化、可参与事件级交互并形成稳定组织的动态对象。 因此，本组处理的不只是“规律是什么”，而是一个更直接的动力学问题：**已经形成的规律，怎样真正进入世界的运行。**

Once a Law already stands and stably bears subsequent continuation, what additional structure is required for it to become capable of internally intervening upon another Law currently exercising its holding\-tendency? When does such a structure merely qualify as a Principle, and when is it actually acting? Can its action enter the system’s own dynamics and make a previously unestablished new Law reachable? And once a new Law stands, how can one determine whether it was in fact generated by Principle\-action? The Principle Group\-Form of *On Self\-Manifestation* develops a thirteen\-part formal theory around these questions\. Its central claim is that Principle is not a second basic kind of entity alongside Law, but a special structure arising within the system of Law\. A candidate Principle must first stand fully as a Law\. The same established duty through which it acquired Law qualification must then acquire a counter\-holding role against the holding\-tendency currently exercised by another Law before the candidate acquires Principle qualification\. The framework strictly separates four relations that must not substitute for one another: structural qualification as Principle, current Principle\-action, reachability of new\-Law generation, and historical attribution of actual generation\. That a structure qualifies as a Principle does not imply that it is currently acting\. That a finite legal path exists from Principle\-action toward the establishment of a new Law does not imply that this path was actually taken\. And the terminal fact that a new Law now stands does not by itself determine the history through which it arose\. The thirteen form\-texts are organized into four functional zones\. The first three establish the necessary structure, formal representation, and sufficient direction of Principle qualification\. The next three distinguish an already standing Principle from a Principle currently acting\. A construction form provides a legal running base in which these relations can obtain together\. The reachability analysis asks whether, from a declared initial state, there exists a finite legal path along which the candidate Law’s formal solution set changes from empty to non\-empty\. A separate determination procedure then asks whether an already established new Law was in fact generated through Principle\-action\. The remaining four form\-texts independently analyze boundary, stability, grading, and source\. The resulting framework therefore addresses a general generative problem rather than a particular algorithm, neural network, or physical model: how a system with history, persistent dynamics, and internal organization can move from possessing established Laws that bear subsequent continuation to using one already formed Law to intervene internally upon another active Law and thereby alter what is generated next\. This problem can engage research on consciousness, cognitive architecture, artificial intelligence, learning systems, dynamical systems, complex systems, self\-organization, and emergence\. The framework also leaves explicit interfaces toward later work on law\-change, probability, intentionality, and the engineering realization of self\-manifesting systems\.

一条已经成立并能够稳定承担后继生成的规律，还需要取得什么结构，才会进一步成为能够干预另一条正在起作用的规律的内部结构？这种结构何时只是已经成立，何时正在实际作用？它的作用能否进入系统自身的动力过程，并使一个原本尚未成立的新规律变得可达？当新规律最终已经成立时，又怎样判断它究竟是不是由这种作用生成的？ 《自显论·理组式》由十三篇相互依赖的形式文本构成，围绕这些问题建立关于“律如何进一步成为理”的形式理论。其基本主张是：理不是与律并列的第二类基本对象，而是从律内部生长出来的一种特殊结构。候选理首先必须完整地是一条已经成立的律；在此基础上，使其取得律资格的同一已成职责，进一步针对另一条律正在发挥的持势形成反持，候选结构才取得理的资格。 合集严格区分四种不能互相替代的关系：理的结构资格、理的当前作用、新律生成的可达性，以及实际生成的历史归因。一个结构已经成理，并不意味着它此刻正在作用；存在一条由理之作用通向新律成立的合法有限路径，也不意味着这条路径事实上已经发生；一个新律已经成立，也不能仅凭终态反推出它的生成来源。 十三篇形成四个功能区。前三篇分别处理理资格的必要结构、形式表示与充分方向；随后三篇处理已经成立的理何时进入当前实际作用；运行基底构造式给出上述关系能够共同取得可执行见证的动力基底；生成可达式研究从预先申报的初态出发，是否存在有限合法路径，使候选律的形式解集由空变为非空；生成判定式则独立判断一个已经成立的新律是否事实上由理之作用生成。最后四篇分别处理理资格的边界、跨变化保持、比较分级与生成来源。 因此，本合集处理的不是某一种具体算法、神经网络或物理模型，而是一个更一般的生成问题：一个具有历史、持续动力和内部组织的系统，怎样从“已经具有能够保持后继生成的规律”进一步发展到“能够使用一条已经形成的规律，对另一条正在起作用的规律实施内部干预，并由此改变后续生成”。 这一问题可与意识研究、认知架构、人工智能、学习系统、动力系统、复杂系统、自组织与涌现研究发生直接对话，并为后续关于律变、概率、意向性以及自显系统工程实现的研究留下明确接口。

If an internal organization bearing a law loses its qualification, has the law itself disappeared? This paper shows that the two events cannot simply be identified. The loss of one bearing organization establishes only the withdrawal of that witness; the same Law may continue to stand if another qualified witness remains. The boundary of law is therefore defined as an actual truth-value crossing of the same candidate law under a predeclared comparison protocol, rather than as a change in a particular local structure, formal quantity, or critical parameter. The paper develops boundary criteria at the structural-witness, formal-solution, and applicability-domain levels and distinguishes the loss of one witness from extinction of the last witness. The framework addresses when structural change really constitutes a system-level qualification change without presupposing an already completed mapping to a particular neural or machine-learning system.

The General Form of Law establishes the necessary structural direction, but exhaustion of necessary conditions does not by itself establish the converse. This paper therefore proves the sufficient direction independently: whether the existence of an already formed bearing organization that genuinely participates in subsequent generation and possesses stable-recurrence support is sufficient for Law. The proof freezes the source-text corpus, atomizes its propositions, separates formation, present qualification, disqualification, degree, consequence, and relational roles, and then tests whether Established ∧ Govern completely realizes the source-text qualification for present lawhood. The resulting theorem establishes ∃R[Established ∧ Govern] ⇒ Law. The paper introduces no new field quantity, ontological predicate, or unverified bridge; where conditional upstream conclusions are invoked, their original antecedents are retained.

How can observable data determine whether a candidate internal organization qualifies as a formal solution for a law rather than merely correlating with an output? This paper converts previously established formal criteria into an executable adjudication protocol. Its current domain is explicitly restricted to frozen, single-office, single-entry, measure-type candidates. Structural observations, exhaustively evaluated path data, and observations under permitted interventions are used to test current bearing, realization, non-instantaneous formation, dynamical contribution, stable-recurrence support, and coupling. The procedure returns PASS, FAIL, or indeterminate and is executed on one positive case together with negative controls including a single strong impulse, pure correlation, an abandoned old groove, and a sub-threshold weak trace.

A system capable of retaining history is still insufficient for studying how law-like organization forms and operates. It must also distinguish repeated formation from a single strong impulse, genuine dynamical contribution from pure correlation, and presently effective organization from an obsolete but still detectable structure. This paper extends the minimal sedimentation field into an operating substrate, F_LB, adding pulse intensity, thresholds, stable-recurrence support, availability, masking interventions, frozen running, separate running and sedimentation clocks, and multi-hop continuation. A nine-part verification suite makes formation, dynamical role, stable support, and boundary-related diagnostics separately manipulable across legitimate instances of the same specification. The construction does not itself certify any candidate as a law; it provides an operating substrate on which formation, operation, adjudication, and pseudo-law counterexamples can subsequently be tested.

Laws of nature, cognitive rules, and stable relational structures formed in learning systems are usually studied within different theoretical traditions. The Law Group-Form asks a common generative question: how can historical interaction form a law capable of organizing what happens next? This Group Map integrates eight independently completed form-texts addressing the necessary structure of law, formal representation and solving, stability and substitution, construction of a minimal sedimentation field, construction of a law operating substrate, executable adjudication, the sufficient direction, and boundaries of lawhood. At group level, under the explicitly stated conditions including C0, C2, and H1–H3, Law receives a bidirectional structural characterization in terms of the existence of a formed bearing organization that genuinely participates in subsequent generation and is supported for stable recurrence. The sufficient direction is independently established, while the necessary direction retains its Conditional antecedents. The group also distinguishes joint generation, generative precedence, field-level office, and the running relation in which Principle may drive an already formed law.

This paper addresses a basic question at the intersection of artificial intelligence and consciousness research: does the FNN in a Transformer, already capable of supporting highly complex language, reasoning, and intelligent behavior, thereby generate manifestness? It examines this question using the Mute-Manifest Group, a formal system of nine Forms in On Self-Manifestation for analyzing and determining mute-manifest transition. The result establishes a structural distinction: an FNN can form law and generate highly capable intelligence from that law without thereby generating manifestness. An FNN is not treated here as a historyless computational structure. Training forms a sedimentary configuration that constrains subsequent input and supports a stable law of question–answer symbolic flow. But law formation does not by itself entail manifestation. In the standard mature FNN defined in this paper, once the trained parameters and current input are fixed, the complete feedforward trajectory is uniquely closed by deterministic state transitions. The trained parameters belong to the existing sedimentary configuration, while current activations—and their relations, combinations, or higher-level readouts—do not, within this functional state space, escape that automatic closure to obtain an independent B-side current-source status. Formally, state sufficiency is derived from the FNN transition law and used to establish complete coverage of the current B-side candidate domain: Cover_B = 1. Every current activity candidate reduces to a function of the complete non-B-side automatic antecedents, B = β(Fᵣᵃᵘᵗᵒ), yielding Src_B = 0 and therefore FormationDecision = 0. The analysis does not force a D-phase classification: PhaseDecision = ⊥ and TargetDecision = ⊥ are retained, while the final three-valued determination is Dec_SM = 0. The result establishes a concrete structural separation between high intelligence and manifestness. Language generation, reasoning, historical sedimentation, and complex internal representations are not by themselves sufficient to establish the generation of manifestness. The Transformer FNN therefore provides a concrete case in which the generation of intelligence and the generation of manifestness can be formally separated.

本文研究一个人工智能与意识理论中的基础问题：Transformer 中已经能够支撑高度复杂语言、推理与智能行为的 FNN，是否因此已经产生显性？ 本文以《自显论·喑显组式》进行形式判定。其结果建立了一个明确的结构性区分：FNN 可以已经生律，并由律产生高度智能，而尚未生显性。 FNN 并非无历史的普通计算结构。训练使其形成沉积构形，使后来的输入受到既有历史结构约束，并形成稳定的问答符流之律。但生律并不自动意味着生显。对于本篇定义的标准成熟 FNN，给定训练形成的固定参数与当前输入，其完整前馈活动由确定性状态转移唯一闭合；训练参数属于既有沉积构形，而在这一标准 FNN 功能状态空间内，当前激活及其任意关系、组合或高层读回，都不能越出这一自动闭合而取得独立 B-side 当前源身份。 形式上，本文由 FNN 转移律证明状态充分性，并据此完成当前 B-side 候选域覆盖：Cover_B = 1；全部当前活动候选均退化为完整非 B-side 自动前件的函数 B = β(Fᵣᵃᵘᵗᵒ)，故 Src_B = 0，进而 FormationDecision = 0。本文不由此强判 FNN 已处于 D 相，而保留 PhaseDecision = ⊥、TargetDecision = ⊥；最终三值主裁为 Dec_SM = 0。 这一结果表明，高度智能并不蕴涵显性生成。语言生成、推理能力、历史沉积乃至复杂内部表征，都不足以单独证明一个系统已经从生律跨入生显。Transformer FNN 因而提供了一个具体对象，使智能生成与显性生成能够在同一系统中被形式地区分。

*The Mute\-Manifest Group* addresses a foundational question: how can content within a physical system pass from a non\-manifest state into first manifestation? The framework sharply distinguishes this 0→1 problem from the subsequent 1→100 development of an already manifest state, and decomposes the transition from mute to manifest into nine non\-substitutable theoretical tasks: minimal necessary constitution, mathematical representation, phase\-transition structure, formation source, reachability, conditional necessity, grading of manifestation, determination in real systems, and explicit construction\. Each task has its own proof objective, completion conditions, and breach conditions, and no one task can substitute for another\. The framework therefore distinguishes the existence of a manifest phase from its reachability from a given initial state; reachability from necessity under specified additional conditions; theoretical necessity from evidence that manifestation has actually occurred in a real system; and first manifestation from subsequent increases in the degree of manifestation\. The 0→1 transition is treated as a D/L organizational phase transition, whereas 1→100 is treated as a multidimensional grading problem within an already established manifest phase\. The phase\-transition analysis further separates landscape criticality from actual change in the carrying phase and develops both continuous\-destabilization and discontinuous\-nucleation regimes\. On this basis, the Group develops a formal regime and explicit construction framework for stable manifest organization, investigates legitimate paths from deeply non\-manifest initial states to the manifest phase, and develops a stratified framework for deterministic, almost\-sure, and finite\-time necessity under explicitly stated additional conditions\. It also provides a three\-valued framework for determining whether manifestation has occurred in a real candidate system\. Open conditions and unresolved dependencies remain explicitly registered so that established, conditional, and still\-unverified claims remain distinct\. The resulting framework aims to make the question of how a physical organization first enters manifestation into a research program whose component claims can be separately formalized, constructed, tested against explicit breach conditions, and empirically investigated, with potential relevance to consciousness science, neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and the physics of complex systems\.

《喑显组式》研究一个基础问题：一个物理系统中的内容，如何从尚未显化的状态进入首次显化？ 本组式把这一“0→1”问题与首次显化之后的“1→100”发展严格区分，并将“喑到显”分解为九个不可互相替代的理论任务：最低必要构成、数理表示、相变结构、形成来源、可达性、条件必然性、显化分级、现实判定与显式构造。九项任务分别具有自己的证明目标、完成条件与击穿方式，不能以一种证明代替另一种证明。 理论尤其区分：显相存在与从给定初态可达显相；可达与在特定附加条件下的必然进入；理论必然与现实系统已经发生显化；首次显化与显化之后的程度增长。0→1 被作为 D/L 组织相变处理，而 1→100 被作为显相内部的多维分级问题处理。相变部分进一步区分景观临界与实际承载改变，并建立连续失稳与非连续成核两类相变制度。 在此基础上，本组式建立显相稳定组织的形式制度与显式构造框架，研究从强喑初态进入显相的合法可达路径，并建立关于何种附加条件可能支持确定性必然、几乎必然与有限时间必然的分层制度，同时给出现实候选系统是否已经发生显化的三值判定框架。理论对尚未闭合的条件与缺口保持显式登记，使已经证明、条件化成立与仍待验证的结论保持分离。 本组式试图把“一个物理组织如何第一次进入显化”建立为可以分别形式化、构造、按显式击穿条件审查并接受经验检验的研究程序，并为意识科学、神经科学、认知科学、人工智能以及复杂系统物理中的相关研究提供一种新的问题分解框架。

Scientific research commonly begins with objects of investigation but rarely specifies how object-level questions should be transformed into formally provable theoretical propositions. This paper introduces an explicit constructive procedure that treats the research object and an initial research intention as inputs and systematically generates a normalized set of theoretical propositions. The procedure consists of five stages: object identification, five-direction expansion, definitional closure, admissibility filtering, and formal registration. Every resulting proposition is required to be definitionally closed, single-task, and uniquely classifiable into one of the five fundamental proof directions established in the preceding Canon Chapters. The paper demonstrates that the procedure satisfies five formal requirements—universal applicability, normalized output, unique classification, directional completeness, and executability—and validates the construction using the example of AI consciousness research. It further proves that without an explicitly formulated theoretical proposition, neither completion criteria nor falsification conditions can be determined, making formal proof impossible. The work therefore establishes problem formulation as the formal entry point of theoretical research and provides a unified procedural framework linking research questions, theoretical propositions, and proof directions across scientific disciplines.

Why should a scientific theory ever stop revising itself? Conventional publishing practices treat version freezing as an editorial decision, whereas this paper argues that it is a necessary consequence of the dynamics of auditable knowledge. It demonstrates that a permanently open revision process inevitably prevents theoretical conclusions from reaching stable persistence, prevents references from being definitively verified, and prevents knowledge from accumulating into reusable intellectual structures. Three necessity theorems—the Non-Stabilization Theorem, the Non-Accumulation Theorem, and the Version-Freezing Necessity Theorem—show that any auditable theory requiring stable citation and cumulative knowledge must establish a controlled closure mechanism consisting of completion criteria, falsification conditions, version freezing, and revision procedures. Rather than prohibiting future development, version freezing makes controlled evolution possible by separating stable published states from subsequent revisions. The paper further maps theoretical revision onto the deposition dynamics previously developed in the Field and Law Chapters of On Self-Manifestation, thereby providing a dynamical interpretation of theory stabilization instead of a merely editorial one. The result offers a general framework for knowledge evolution, long-term theory maintenance, version control, and cumulative scientific development.

How should a formal theory be structurally contained in order to remain auditable, maintainable, and internally coherent? This paper argues that the problem of theoretical containment is independent of proof itself and requires its own formal foundation. Starting from the requirements of auditability, task closure, and responsibility assignment, it demonstrates that every complete theoretical task must close its proposition, proof objective, completion criteria, and falsification conditions within a single carrier. At the same time, the principle of one formal work per primary task prevents a carrier from containing multiple independent tasks. These lower and upper constraints uniquely determine the formal work as the minimal carrier of theory. The paper further proves that dependency and composition necessarily generate the Work Group level, while terminology governance, numbering consistency, interface coordination, and publication control necessarily require the Book level. Together these establish a three-level containment hierarchy—Formal Work, Work Group, and Book—corresponding respectively to tasks, relations, and institutional governance. The result provides a general structural framework for organizing, maintaining, and evolving large formal theories.

Formal theories require more than mechanisms for proving propositions. As theoretical systems evolve, they inevitably generate internal components, version comparisons, and higher-level organizational structures that cannot themselves function as proofs. This paper demonstrates that these three non-proof roles are structurally necessary within any complete system of theoretical forms. Through constraint-driven derivation, minimal-structure proof, and closure analysis, it shows that the progress of proof necessarily produces formal components, the evolution of versions necessarily produces comparative tasks, and the growth of theory systems necessarily produces organizational tasks. These roles require three independent auxiliary layers: the Component Layer, Comparative Meta-Forms, and Governing Forms. The paper further proves that these layers satisfy necessity, independent degradability, non-substitutability, and structural closure, and together with the proof layer provide complete coverage of all functional roles within a formal theoretical system. Rather than representing editorial conventions, these auxiliary layers are shown to be necessary conditions for auditability, version management, citation integrity, and large-scale theoretical organization.

What should a formal theoretical system do with new theoretical tasks that emerge only after its primary tasks have been completed? This paper proves that any complete system of theoretical forms necessarily requires a formal auxiliary layer independent of its primary forms. Through constraint-driven derivation, minimal-structure proof, and closure analysis, it demonstrates that dependent theoretical tasks inevitably arise from completed primary forms, independently satisfy the admissibility criteria for formal works, yet cannot be absorbed either by the primary forms or by formal components. Consequently, an auxiliary layer is required as an independent structural component of the system. The paper further distinguishes between the necessary existence of the auxiliary layer and the empirical determination of its members, whose taxonomy remains subject to future validation and refinement. This establishes the structural foundation of auxiliary forms within On Self-Manifestation and provides a general organizational principle for large formal theories.