Evolution of life in the S-hierarchy of the Universe

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

John 13:34

The presentation of the results of the investigation of scale symmetry is in general finished, dear reader. Only small fragments, which, in the author's opinion, have not yet "matured" into a systematic presentation. And yet another rather extensive part of the book awaits you. When the book was conceived, the writing of this part was not planned, and yet it appeared. Why? I was led to the following points of principle.

Firstly, it is obvious that there is a clear worldview contradiction between the laws of harmonious structure and large-scale integrity of the Universe described above, on the one hand, and the imperfection of the social structure of mankind, on the other.

The question arises: is mankind governed by universal harmonious laws? Maybe, besides the laws of harmony in the Universe there are also the laws of disharmony, which the author failed to reveal? And, maybe, in the human community are dominated not so much by the laws of harmony, as by these unidentified laws of disharmony? In other words, maybe the social world is some "untidy bear corner" of the Universe?

Second, the conclusion about the scale-central position of the cell in the Universe obviously leads to an explicit world view to a hypothetical distortion. It turns out that there is nothing more central and important than a cell in the Universe (even taking into account the hypothetical "grain of the world spirit"). The human being is shifted \(10^{15}\) orders of magnitude to the right from the scale center, and the community of people — even further away.

Throughout the process of writing and designing this book, the importance of the IAB in terms of scale symmetry remained undeniably important to me. However, I realized that prioritizing ICH in daily human practice can lead to unbridled egoism or fetishization of one's hereditary self.

Thirdly, the question previously posed by biologists surfaced with new acuteness: why did the Biosphere need to create the world of multicellular organisms and man in particular? After all, for non-specialists only, a cell is a small drop of something. Cytologists know very well that a cell is a magnificent creation of nature with a complex internal structure and well-adjusted processes of vital activity at all levels of organization. And, by the way, until now biologists have not given an answer as to why nature has not gone the way of increasing the cell to centimeter size. Evolution of life in the large-scale hierarchy of the Universe and meter-sized cells, but launched the mechanism of cell fragmentation and the creation of multicellular systems. After all, biology does not see any particularly fundamental obstacles to the growth of cells to much larger sizes. And in general it is not clear why it was necessary for the nature, which created a magnificent cellular world, which, besides, is very close to such an important for the Universe scale, as ICBM, to go to all lengths and build organisms from cells. After all, many hundreds of millions of years only single-celled organisms lived in the Biosphere. What universal reason drove the unicellulars into the "anthill" of multicellular systems, where the number of cells reaches, for example, in a human being — the value of \(10^{15}\)? And what force then drove multicellulars into flocks, herds and biocenoses? Man was torn out of the integral and harmonious world of communal life, in which he lived for at least hundreds of thousands of years, and thrown into the "anthill" of big cities and the rigid system of giant empires?

These and similar questions had been bothering me for many years. It is not that I did not know traditional answers to them from biologists and philosophers; the problem was another: how to find a common answer to them within the framework of the model I had built. It turned out that either the laws of scale symmetry in the Universe are violated, or its scale boundaries are defined incorrectly, or there is no special place for a human being in the Universe. It is provided for a cell, but not for a human being. Thinking over all possible variants of answers to these questions for many years, I finally came to the following conclusion.

I think that there is a SCALE WIND OF CHANGES "blowing" in the Universe. And it "blows" mainly from left to right, along the S-axis, i.e. from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Therefore, the issues of scale equilibrium, stability and symmetry should be considered with this factor in mind. I once thought of an image that illustrates this idea quite well. Suppose we are conducting a simple experiment in a closed chamber to determine the most stable position of a coin on a grid. We invite an outside observer and ask him to give the coin the most stable position. The observer, of course, will put the coin flat, it will not occur to him to put it on the edge. Indeed, in the case of placing the coin on the edge, a slight oscillation of the chamber will cause it to fall, while in the lying position the coin will remain lying. Now let us slightly change the conditions of the experiment without telling the observer anything about it. Let us create a powerful air flow through the grating from bottom to top. Then the coin laid flat will tumble in this air flow, because it will be in an unstable position. A coin placed on the edge, on the other hand, will be unexpectedly as stable as possible. Its sides will be blown by the upward currents with minimum resistance.

An independent observer, whom we did not warn about the fan being on and who has no way to feel the airflow, will be extremely surprised by what he sees. The picture will seem absurd to him. Contrary to common sense The coin standing on the edge will not fall down when the camera vibrates and shakes. Anyone who studies scale symmetry may find himself in the same astonishment. The author himself was perplexed for a long time. If we do not introduce the notion of scale symmetry in the winds of change, much of the panorama of large-scale processes will seem illogical, strange and even absurd. In particular, one can make a wrong conclusion about a very unstable and random position of the Biosphere in the Universe. One can try to adopt some more stable position and at the same time f "lie across" the Universal flow of changes.

For example, if one does not consider the pressure of the wind of change from left to right, one can put one's heir-at-law at the center of the universe The first gust of the universal wind will make this position very unstable. But at the first gust of the universal wind, this position will be very unstable, and you may be "tumbled" through life...

All this, the reader may say, is literary imagery. And where are the facts confirming the existence of this vector of evolution shifted to the right along the S-AXIS? Alas, the reader is right. There are almost no facts. There is mainly an intuitive vision of some phenomenon. It can be called S-EVOLUTION, which creates a constant pressure for the shift of all development processes in the Universe towards larger scales. I, as the author of this book, do not have sufficient facts and arguments to describe S-EVOLUTION in as much detail as S-SYMMETRY or S-DYNAMICS. I have therefore found myself placed before a choice. I could be satisfied with the presentation of the laws of scale symmetry and stop where the Evolution of life in the large-scale hierarchy of the Universe 5 second part of the book ends, or I could go on to speculate on this complex and unexplored topic. I repent, at first I chose the first option, which was much safer from the point of view of possible criticism and attacks by opponents. However, when, after several presentations at conferences, I saw where the worldview of many listeners was turning, I came to the conviction that it was better to try to speak, even if not quite accurately, fully and correctly, about S-EVOLUTION than to remain silent about it at all.

This is how the following structure of the third part came about. At its beginning, very little systematic argument is given for the existence of a wind of change. Then these grounds, which are half observable, half postulated, are taken as axiomatic. Evolution of life in the large-scale hierarchy of the Universe From the axiom logical corollaries are made and some general principles of S-Evolution are constructed. Then I tried to find the correspondence of these consequences in the history of world culture — in its philosophical and religious strata. It is in these, and not in the scientific, strata, because they are more mature in outlook, than the scientific stratum of understanding the world, because once upon a time all science came from religion and philosophy.

Naturally, this approach has often led me very far away from the conclusions and schemes presented in the first two parts. It has led me into the realm of personal worldview perceptions and predilections. Perhaps, somewhere these perceptions will seem insufficiently mature or contradictory to the reader. The point is that I, as an author, did not set myself the task of giving my own holistic worldview. The task was much more local: to find at least an associative connection of laws and provisions long known in world culture with the previously stated idea of S-Evolution.

If one wonders why the author has not attempted to give his holistic vision, the answer is simple. Because it is still maturing, it has not yet taken final shape, and many of its areas look raw and tentative. May the Lord God therefore forgive me for all my possible errors in this final part of the book!