Natural sciences in fig. 1.1 are presented as non-overlapping rectangles, which is actually not entirely true. It is well known that between the natural sciences there are quite wide border areas in which sciences - "hybrids" - such as mathematical physics, physical chemistry, biophysics, biochemistry, geophysics and many others "dominate". This begs the question: is there any "non-overlapping" information in the natural sciences at all? In other words, are all natural sciences equally fundamental, or will one of them possibly “absorb” the others in the future?

Before answering this question, let us try to understand the differences between the natural sciences that take place at the present time. These differences are due to the fact that matter in nature has different levels of organization, which, like culture, form a hierarchical structure. At the deepest level are elementary particles and fundamental physical fields through which these particles interact. Modern physics is engaged in the study of such objects. However, in more broad sense physics includes all those phenomena and processes in nature, the description of which is based directly on the energy of interaction between the individual parts of the system under consideration and between the system and the environment. The interaction energy is something that is common in mechanics, and in electromagnetism, and in thermodynamics, and in quantum physics. In philosophy, to designate the material structure, which at a given hierarchical level of organization of matter is considered elementary (indivisible), the term substrate is used. Such a substrate for physics are particles (not necessarily elementary) interacting through physical fields.

For more high level structural organization of matter are atoms, which are stable formations of elementary particles and fields. Describing the interaction of atoms, especially complex ones, using the laws of physics is a very thankless job due to the sharply increasing complexity of mathematical calculations. In addition, and this turns out to be the most important, the results of such calculations are often difficult to interpret. At the same time, by switching to another "language" - the language of chemistry, one can easily describe almost all known processes involving atoms. Thus, in chemistry they are not interested in the internal structure of atoms, but consider them elementary (indivisible) objects of chemical processes. In other words, the substratum of chemistry is atoms.

Chemistry studies the processes of formation and transformation of molecules. Molecules, as is known, are of great diversity: from the simplest, such as H2, CO2 or H2O, to the most complex organic molecules, consisting of hundreds of thousands and millions of atoms. However, there is a class of organic molecules - the so-called biopolymers (proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides), whose behavior reveals special properties, primarily self-organization and self-reproduction, which underlie biological processes in nature. Therefore, biopolymers are the substrate of biology.

This hierarchical ladder can be continued further, beyond the limits of natural science. For example, in the social sciences, the elementary structure or substratum is man.

We consciously began consideration of this issue from the physical substratum, although if we include mathematics in the natural sciences, we should also talk about the substratum of mathematics. Such a substrate, obviously, is a unit, because all other numbers are a different number of units or their absence. However, not all scientists agree that mathematics is a natural science, since it studies not the material objects themselves, but the spatial and quantitative relationships between them, expressed in an abstract, generalized form.

Let us now turn to the problem of the fundamental nature of the natural sciences, which actually boils down to answering the question: is it possible in the future to describe social processes in the language of biology, biological processes in the language of chemistry, chemical processes in the language of physics, and physics itself to be represented in the form of simple mathematical relationships? With a positive answer to this question, we come to the concept of reductionism, which is understood as the possibility of reducing complex phenomena to simpler, more elementary ones. Reductionism was and is a very powerful methodological principle in science; with its help, important results were obtained that made it possible to connect seemingly completely different phenomena. For example, the electromagnetic picture of the world established the unified nature of electrical, magnetic and optical phenomena.

However, as the development of science has shown, the possibilities of reductionism are not unlimited. It turns out that not always the behavior of a complex system can be reduced to a simple sum of the behavior of its components. Complex systems from certain level organizations of their structure, discover new qualities that cannot even be described with the help of those characteristics that are used to describe individual parts of the system. For example, the properties of a building built of bricks cannot be reduced to the properties of bricks, if only because completely different buildings can be built from the same bricks. In the same way, completely different words can be formed from the same letters of the alphabet, which means that the “properties” of words do not follow from the “properties” of their constituent letters. Such examples of the appearance of a new quality in the transition from simple to complex objects can be given ad infinitum.

Thus, the division into the humanities and natural sciences, into physics, chemistry, and biology is not temporary, but is of a fundamental nature and, most likely, will continue in one form or another in the future.

Divide people into Various types, in principle, in an infinite number of ways, relying on their most diverse properties.

If you divide them, for example, by gender, then they are either men or women (or hermaphrodites).

If we divide them according to the degree of creative activity, then we can distinguish creators, guardians And consumers(as a special case - "destroyers").

If we take into account the general warehouse of the soul, then we can distinguish people divine nature (Sanskrit "divya bhava"), heroic("vira bhava") and animal("pashu bhava") etc.

If we divide them, based on the ideas of Dr. Graves according to the ways of perceiving the world, then we can distinguish 9 basic Memes

It should be noted that these models have nothing to do with value judgments and comparisons of one level with another according to the “better or worse” type.

At the top is an infallible figure, a guide through life. Ruler by right.

Beneath it are the lazy and the smart, the elite and the brains of the community.

They are not overly concerned with work and troubled with worries, but they are the ones who generate ideas, build a strategy, debug a system, and think through moves.

In addition, the lazy and smart, due to “laziness”, are not struck by empty vanity, and due to the strength of the mind, they will not encroach on the place of the first.

Behind them are smart and energetic.

There is less sense from them, because their own enterprise, the desire to keep their finger on the pulse and be aware of everything prevents them from thinking and penetrating into the essence.

As well as the desire to forge a career - this also interferes with thinking.

Energetic and stupid - the lower tier of the hierarchy.

This is the base, the foundation.

In fact, everything rests on it, because with their zeal and ability to carry out the will of the leader without reasoning, the energetic and stupid keep discipline, cement the ranks and make the system formidable in the eyes of outsiders.

Well, outside the hierarchy, they are lazy and stupid, ordinary “gray mice”, who are simply not allowed to “fatten in the barn”.

Dependents. The main aspiration is Kama etc.

Of course, a vaishya born in a brahmin family will suffer from greed despite his upbringing, unless he overcomes his shortcoming.

And a kshatriya or a brahmana, born in a family of sudras, will never put up with such a situation, but will strenuously "beat out among the people."

The theory of social mobility by Pitirim Sorokin - "Elevators", upward and downward social mobility, facilitated social osmosis - these are terms that apply specifically to an established society

“Elevators”, both according to Sorokin and Parsons, are channels moving through creation and labor.

“Lift” is education, a career in the army, the Church, professional growth in a company or government agency, the rise of one's own business.

In theory, it is arranged in such a way that the person moving in the “elevator” is the last to think about which floor this structure has the last - it matters which one is next, otherwise it doesn’t matter.

Finally, the “social lift” is a mechanism designed for the calm and smooth movement of hundreds of thousands and millions of people, several generations, and not for the rapid rise of small-town chandalas (Red Ham and his litter) to sky-high heights.

“Social elevators” is a concept that still tolerably describes the mechanism for smoothing out contradictions in the structure of society.

But still, “social lifts” are about the work of generations, about family education, in the end, about many years of hard work, about its successes and failures, about the social dimension of private life.

1.4 Linnaean hierarchy

Biochemical systematics is a scientific discipline whose tasks include the development of principles for the classification of living organisms and the practical application of these principles to the construction of a system. Classification here refers to the description and placement in the system of all existing and extinct organisms.

Systematics always assumes that:

the diversity of living organisms around us has a certain internal structure,

this structure is organized hierarchically, that is, different taxa are consistently subordinate to each other,

this structure is fully cognizable, which means that it is possible to build a complete and comprehensive system of the organic world (“natural system”).

The main goals of taxonomy are:

name (including description) of taxa,

diagnostics (definition, that is, finding a place in the system),

extrapolation, that is, the prediction of the characteristics of an object, based on the fact that it belongs to a particular taxon.

Modern classifications of living organisms are built on a hierarchical principle. Different levels of hierarchy (ranks) have own names(from highest to lowest): kingdom, type or department, class, order or order, family, genus and, in fact, species. Species already consist of individual individuals. It is accepted that any particular organism must consistently belong to all seven categories. In complex systems, additional categories are often distinguished, for example, using prefixes over- and sub- (superclass, subtype, etc.) for this. Each taxon must have a certain rank, that is, belong to any taxonomic category.

This principle of building a system is called the Linnaean hierarchy, named after the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, whose works formed the basis of the tradition of modern scientific systematics.

It is now accepted that classification, where appropriate, should follow the principles of evolutionism. Typically, biological systems are created in the form of a list, in which each line corresponds to some taxon (group of organisms). Since the 1960s, a branch of systematics has been developing, called "cladistics" (or phylogenetic systematics), which deals with the ordering of taxa into an evolutionary tree - a cladogram, that is, a diagram of the relationship of taxa. If a taxon includes all the descendants of some ancestral form, it is monophyletic. W. Hennig formalized the procedure for determining the ancestral taxon, and in his cladistic systematics he based the classification on a cladogram constructed using computer techniques. This direction is now leading in Europe and the USA.

Natural science in the context of human culture

The levels of culture are organized hierarchically: there are common places of greater or lesser importance, while some cultures depend on others. So you can build the usual hierarchical chain of such cultures as: natural, humanitarian ...

Natural science in the system of sciences

United by specific research methods, the natural sciences form a hierarchical (Greek hieros - sacred and arche - power, the arrangement of elements in order from lower to higher, a sequence of increasingly complex structures) system ...

Symmetry conservation laws

The number of laws of nature formulated in the natural sciences to date is very large. Empirical laws are the most numerous class...

Hierarchical organization

The very first creatures that arose on Earth were capable of reproducing their own kind at the expense of environment(otherwise we would not call them beings). Hence...

Hierarchical organization

Many researchers try to place all living systems in a single hierarchical series, but usually one or another system is left out - either biogeocenoses, then populations, then species, not to mention superspecific taxa ...

Hierarchies are natural (arising spontaneously, spontaneously) and artificial (created for some purpose).
The viability of artificial hierarchies (formal groups - educational, industrial, sports, military... collectives), as well as natural, self-organizing ones, depends on the leader's rank potential. If it is not enough, then:
either the group cannot withstand competition from the outside - from other societies and, losing sources of vital (vital resources), ceases to exist;
or the so-called. an informal leader supplementing the formal one, but, in the end, dual power destroys the group from the inside and it disappears, or a new group with a new leader is formed from its remnants.
Depending on the structure of the ranking potential (the ratio of ambitions and opportunities) and professional qualities, a high-ranking person holding a high position can be
or a LEADER - a charismatic person (charisma - Greek favor, gift - a special talent of outstanding people, thanks to which they are able to do what seems to be beyond human capabilities) with reduced primativity (not aggressive with subordinates, capable of altruism , moderate hierarchical ambitions, genuine ranking potential, owns conflict situation);
or a TYRANTOR — the owner of high ranking ambitions and low ranking potential (cowardice, moderate conflict initiative, weak conflict resistance), fighting to win and maintain a high rank using all available methods, among which repression and deceit dominate. "Alpha - tyrant" gladly looks straight into the eyes if they fall, recognizing his superiority. An aggressive dominant likes to humiliate others, provoking behavior that confirms his high status. A tyrant is a coward and rules over people only because they voluntarily submit to him.
In experiments with cockerels, the researchers glued their high crests to the dominants, and, despite their excellent fighting qualities, they turned out to be "down". And all because no one obeyed them himself.
The temptation to realize ranking ambitions is caused by politics, administrative service in state structures, military service or service in law enforcement agencies. It attracts ambitious people there. Possessors of low rank potential for work in government bodies are professionally unsuitable. But without strict regulation and control, they slide into selfish self-affirmation and abuse.
Who, how and for what purpose will be able to effectively control them?
Low-ranking? - They are by nature incapable of regulating dominants.
Other high-ranking ones? - Only they will be able to effectively control, but will they control disinterestedly - not for themselves, not for the inclusion of the controlled in a new hierarchy, where the controllers are even higher than the controlled, but for the sake of the interests of low-ranking ones? - No! Their control will be reduced to a change of command in power, but will not get rid of corruption.
Whose interests does the hierarchical structure objectively serve? - Dominants? Or all members of the structure?
And what is the difference between "selfish self-affirmation and abuse" from "ordinary domination"?
After all that has been said, it is useful to reflect on the feasibility in principle of a democratic political project. Not by chance everything famous stories democratic political regimes did not last long and, sooner or later, were replaced by authoritarian forms of power, restoring a strict pyramid of vertical hierarchical relations.
For those who would like to learn more about the description of the principles of high-ranking behavior, it is useful to read the work of N. Machiavelli "The Sovereign".
UTOPIA OF DEMOCRACY!!!
In order to curb the boundless rank ambitions of highly primative social hierarchies, the low primative "omegas" once in ancient times invented the "scarecrow" of the super-hierarch - God.
Religion objectively limits the ranking ambitions of the dominants to the virtual image of God, who certainly has the highest rank. GOD is a horror story for low cultured and highly primative people, motivating communal behavior and limiting the selfish impulses of dominants that are destructive to society. GOD, as a "super-hierarch", is endowed with a variety of humanistic qualities, which, thanks to his highest hierarchical status, were assimilated as a role model without suspicion of a Prototype in low-ranking "gentleness" and altruism.
All religions arose in the low-ranking strata of society from the dream of a just, kind and merciful Super-dominant.

To be continued