It seems that the profound problems of scienceare open to such an extend that we have to reconsider our bearingsof scientific thinking. We should not forget, as Leon Brillionobserved, that "our way of thinking and our definitions isso far based on mechanics; we use its language to describe theresults of our experiments, since all these experiments are donewith macroscopical instrumentation"¹⁵.
What new elements can we offer to our thinkingframework ? The thing that intervenes entirely new is the informationalaspects of matter. One could put the problem of mixing them togetherwith the traditional physical science. In fact we do not knowif it will ever become, but there are reasons to believe thatthis will possibly happen. Therefore, before trying such scientificapproaches one needs a philosophical projection into this virginland, even if one risks to give a rather haphazard vision.
Another new element one should consider fora wide general framework of scientific thinking is that of psychologicaleffects. Even if these aspects can so far be examined only philosophically, they are still worth considering, especially those that requirea new material support which could not be offered by what we knowso far in science.

The present stage of scientific developmentreopens acutely the question of existence and consciousness.
The question that could be raised in the casein which there were some deep informational aspects in matter(e.g. those determining the natural laws in the universe) wouldbe that of stability of these informations. Statics within theframework of stability of such informations does not mean fixityfor ever. Stability in the sense we mentioned implies fixed informations,statical to a large extend, but this does not mean that they cannotbe modified in a certain way. This point of view is flexible sincemodifications can appear due to an internal cause for change,or it could be generated by devices producing such modifications.Provided we do not go to mechanically splitting the matter tothe infinity we will inevitably reach ultimate principles. Oneof these principles could represent the tendency towards totalequilibrium; but this would be impossible to be reached on overallscale due to some informational principles no doubt inscribedinto the matter. Such principles would lay at basis of movementand would be themselves subjected to certain movements. To thisthinking based on mechanical model and concepts we shall haveto add new ideas referring to information; thus our image aboutthe world will be much more so if the information is proven to be more profound than it appears today. In this latter case thequestion arises about how should we represent the profound information.Is it essentially a mathematical information (this latter ideais found with many scientists).
Besides this, a world completely describedby formal mathematics would be an automaton. But if it is notcompletely describable through mathematics then through what else? If we think of logics or language then the things will not change,no essential differences from mathematics will appear if we regardthese domains formally. Only the things that give sense, meaning,from nonformal sources, could be the second principle to ensurethe dialectics of information itself.
We should not forget that also there is aformal semantics. In the systems with artificial intelligencea formal semantics is effectively designed and constructed, i.e.through the way data is structured corresponding to a certainsymbolic representation of reality. Linguistics is trying to establisha formal semantics of the natural language, a thing that to acertain extent is possible. Among the many searches of the contemporarylinguistics we mention that there is a variant that is tryingto connect the meaning of a statement to its logical truth, toits logical form; however, even this has eventually to look forelementary semantic components that are outside the linguisticdomain. This shows that the sphere of formal semantics existsbut it cannot be closed, it must have somewhere an opening towardsa more living reality. Anyway, this is the destiny of all logicalsystems since no logical system can be completely closed. Forthis reason we cannot find in principle a closed semantics. Thesemantics built into systems with artificial intelligence is designedby man, i.e. it has an external source. But what are the possiblesemantic sources of the information existing in the depths ofthe existence ?
A purely formal semantics of the deep informationalstructures would not be understandable. Then what type of livingsemantics could sustain them ? What type of physico-phenomenologicalstate is attached to the symbol or is its support ? If nonformalroots to the semantics were there, then the world would not becompletely mathematical, or logical, or linguistical. Of courseit would be necessary for the science to clarify the linguisticalsemantics, and this requires in fact a profound knowledge of brainfunctioning, a knowledge that we do not have today. Finding outabout the functioning of a complex device like the brain couldbring us a lot of surprises, could cast a new light about theconnections between macrocosms and the depths of the materialworld and existence. Nothing is impossible from this point ofview, although a concrete physical model could not be built easilyso far.
It is such a thing that we are trying to doin the present volume. Obviously, everything is only a hypothesis,even if the author let himself be taken away by opinions thatsound like convictions. Even from the philosophical point of view,this work is only a preliminary sketch that contains some crudeideas generated by own internal debating, however under the influenceof the professional work, and also sprung from that call thatevery human has for searching for a bit of what we call the Universe.The man will not be able to go forward in knowledge, will not obtain knowledge unless he searches for it with the philosophicalmind too. But in order to reach beyond the present day frontierof knowledge he has to revise his cognitive framework. To this purpose he has to ask himself the question of to what degree themechanical images are affecting his thinking when he is directingit towards the depths of the existence, to what extend the informationalimage can be of help to him and how he can use the refinementand the complexity of today's science to find the source of simplerunderstanding of the depths using his own mental structures.
It is possible that the notion of informationis not sufficient besides what we know presently, and that new,more profound things are needed. The author of this work is presentingsome philosophical ideas towards such searches and debates, withoutproposing any concrete scientifical models. Constructing modelsthat would constitute scientific hypothesis would require a lengthier supplementary effort. The sure steps of science might in the futureproceed the direction of these philosophical images (even partially)or they could scatter them.
A new philosophical model of the materialworld raises first of all the problem of modifying our cognitiveframe of mind, and this is difficult to build in new directions.But since the old framework proves itself insufficient we haveno other way but to search. And if a new philosophical model couldoffer more wisdom and justification for the human dignity andfor the universal reasoning for construction and creation, thenit could have a larger balancing role for the psychic and sociallife. The thinking and through it the science and the philosophy have remained full of hope for mankind. But this can be achievedonly through work, technology, economics, social system and civilization.