Directionality of evolution in S-space

All of the data collected in cosmology suggests that The Universe is continuously evolving. All the data collected in biology show that the Biosphere is continuously evolving as well. In the cosmological model of the expanding Universe there is a natural sequence of birth and development of its subsystems. First, the world of elementary particles was formed, then the simplest atoms appeared, and further development proceeded on the scales of stars and galaxies. After the completion of this basic first epoch of structure formation the second epoch followed. During this period new varieties began to be added to the main representatives of each class of systems as a result of differentiation and synthesis. This was most clearly manifested in the process of chemical evolution of the Universe, as a result of which the diversity of its atomic composition was growing. At the same time, both at the first and at the second stage, the vector of evolution in general was directed towards the increase of sizes, on the S-axis - to the right.

We can PROPOSE that the evolution of the Biosphere has repeated the path of the evolution of the Universe (certainly in general systemic features). The fact that the first inhabitants of the Earth were unicellular leads us to this assumption, and it took time for multicellulars to appear, which also took quite a long time to evolve to their current forms. Without going into details, in the most general terms we can say that the evolution of biosystems on the Earth went from smaller to larger sizes, and it can be divided into three major stages.

Stage one. Evolution of unicellular organisms.

Stage two. Evolution of multicellular organisms.

Stage three. Evolution of population systems.

Most likely, the last stage has only just begun. The author believes that social populations are the most complex of all populations. Therefore, the third stage can also be called a stage of social evolution. On the S-Axis, each of these three stages can be associated with a certain interval of 5 orders of magnitude each. Each interval can be represented by its scale center - the focus of evolution. For unicellular organisms, the focus of evolution is located in the SCU, for multicellular organisms - in the point (+2), for population forms - in the point (+7) (Fig. 3.1).

PROPOSED that each of the focuses characterizes the center of maximum activity of evolutionary processes at each of the three stages highlighted above.

BEFORE GOING FURTHER, LET'S MAKE A FREEWAY TO STEP OUT.

Let us consider two similar processes: birth and creation. Despite their similarity, there is a fundamental difference between them. Birth is a process of reappearance (reproduction) of systems that have already existed before. Therefore, although each new object is born, but in its key properties, it is a new object. It repeats a certain general type.

Birth is a universal and omnipresent phenomenon for the Universe. New stars, new organisms, new galaxies, new particles are born. This process takes place on all floors of the Universe, at every point of the S-axis. There is nothing eternal in the Universe, everything has its end and its beginning - birth.

Fig. 3.1. The “foci” of Biosphere evolution on the S-Axis.

Creation is the occurrence of any type of object for the first time. If cosmologists are to be believed, there were times when the Universe did not have not only galaxies and stars as types of systems in general, there were not even atoms and elementary particles. Consequently, creation, apparently, is inherent to all floors of the Universe, but in comparison with birth creation is always an act, as after creation of the first stars and galaxies their further appearance in the Universe already passes into the category of birth phenomena. Indeed, it is possible to create something practically only once, definitively. Certainly, when we consider creation in comparison with the subsequent countless repetitions of birth, we can call it an act. However, if this act is examined separately, as an independent phenomenon, then creation manifests itself as a complex process with many internal stages, each of which requires a separate study. In what follows, we will refer to creation as an act or a process depending on the context.

So, if we compare creation and birth (repeated reproduction) in the field of human activity, we can unequivocally state that creation is a more complex process than birth. After all, one can only create something fundamentally new, i.e. something that has not existed in the Universe before.

This unequal value of the two phenomena is also reflected, incidentally, in religious consciousness .

The author is a believer, although he grew up , like most of his peers in the Soviet era, as an atheist. In recent times, many scientists have abandoned theism and are trying to find a scientific basis for the existence of God . How successful these attempts are I cannot judge here, but sometimes it is obvious that there is a "mixture of styles". I can't judge here, but sometimes there's an apparent "cosynthesis of styles "- In purely scientific , even experimental work, there are discussions of the Creator . Often they are replaced by a lack of understanding of the device being studied by the author of this work , of some part of the universe . They only show that their author is a believer in the reasonableness of the universe. is a believer in the reasonableness of this world . In dealing with a subject as complex as the evolution of the universe , I would like to state my position at once : I believe that the world was created by the Almighty. I see the task of science as constantly uncovering the design The Creator and the laws that He established in the Universe. Laws are only laws for science when arbitrariness is excluded from them and strict logic is established, which is automatically fulfilled in nature within the limits of tolerance. Therefore, if we do not understand the world order in some way , then, from my point of view , this is a challenge for us, an active call to knowledge. Knowledge includes at the same time the accumulation of facts , and the strict logical justification , and the relationship of the established laws with previous knowledge . In my further reflections on the evolution of the biosphere and the universe, I will specifically avoid "references" to the Creator wherever possible, to avoid mentioning his name . I believe that if we cannot discover the law of evolution of any part of the universe, then I believe that if we cannot discover the law of evolution of any part of the universe, then we cannot discover the law of evolution of any part of the universe. of any part of the universe, then humanly we can shake our hands and say, "This is how the Creator designed everything". However, any scientist , if he wants to be within the framework of scientific methods (their legitimacy and breadth are not the subject of discussion in this work ), cannot make the process of cognition easier for himself by reasoning on the themes of evolution and reference to the evolution of the Almighty. of the Almighty. For all of the above, by using the term "creation", I will mean that the universe has been created with such informational , logical and physical prerequisites that a new species of systems is possible. This is what I will call the "act of creation".

God is the Father, but God is first and foremost Creator, for He created the world, along with all the types of objects that fill it. Obviously, the role of the Creator in religious teaching is given more importance than that of the Father. This, from our point of view, reflects the general idea of the correlation in the universe of the significance of the phenomena in question.

If we now return to natural science, then, comparing man with animals, we can find a fundamental difference in the fact that man differs from animals in the ability to create. After all, any animal is capable of replicating all those skills and instincts that are inherent in it from nature. Moreover, the classical Marxist division of animals and man according to the ability to labor does not stand up to criticism. After all, many animals labor. For example, ants, bees, birds that build nests, a bear that builds a den. All this labor, but the labor is "instinctive", stereotypical, the labor of repetition. And only man is capable of becoming the creator of new objects and phenomena. Only man creates what was not there before him on the Earth. And it is this ability to create that, in my opinion, distinguishes man from the animal world.

Therefore, one can afford to doubt the classical Marxist formula that "labor created man". It was creativity, or more broadly, labor, that separated man from the animal world.

Any creative person, whether writer, scientist, composer or inventor, knows how much more complex and energetically costly the act of creation is than the act of subsequent repetition, than the act of birth. If you think deeply about the creative activity of mankind, you will be struck by its significance even more. After all, by creating even the most primitive tools of labor and household items, man created something that had never existed before in the Universe (provided that the Earth is the only inhabited planet), in any case, something that had never existed on Earth.

Therefore, in vain some historians laugh at the natives who exchange their gold for glass shards. After all, gold existed before, it was even before the appearance of man on Earth, it was found both by the ancestors of the natives and their ancestors' ancestors. Gold is an object of nature, an ordinary object that has existed for a long time. Glass shards, on the other hand, are objects that the natives see for the first time. They are objects that have been created by man. They are not just shards of glass, they are shards of the great civilizational activity of mankind. The natives justly worship them, for these pieces of glass carry the charge of the great creative tension of the whole civilization. They are a symbol of man's difference from the rest of nature. They are a symbol of man's distinction of his fundamental difference from the rest of nature.

Analysis of the foreseeable history of the Biosphere shows that no new species of animals, birds or plants have appeared in the last thousands of years. Some species have disappeared, some continue to disappear, but nature has not created anything new in the memory of people. All her creative activity belongs to the distant past.

The author anticipates that some biologists will dislike this statement because of its categorical nature .

Therefore, we can almost confidently assert: in the last thousands of years, the process of creativity has been most vigorously and diversely taking place on Earth precisely in the human being. of civilization.

They may say that we are not good Directionality of evolution in scale space. We do not know how and at what rate the process of creation of all currently existing or pre-existing living systems took place in former times. It may have been as rapid as the present process of human creation. But we know that in the part of the Universe visible to us at present the process of creation is most active and intensive in a very narrow layer of matter - in human society. Note that the process of birth has not changed its intensity: as before, animals, birds, fish, insects are born, new stars and galaxies are born. Here the question may arise about the correlation of the quality of the creative product from nature. And uneducated natives feel it better than many modern scientific "sages" realize it. Reflecting on the role of creativity in the history of human civilization we come close to the mystery of the question of the role and place of man in the Universe, Biosphere and civilization. Much of what mankind has created in its history is nothing compared to any kind of animal, less perfect and sometimes harmful to the Biosphere. However, chickens are counted in the fall. It is necessary to wait, when mankind will pass the way of creation at least in one million years. After all, the Biosphere has at least three billion years at its disposal, and the Universe has more than deWe know the natural world of the planet to be so definite . Let us assume that biologists have not noticed the emergence. So what ? Does that change the principle of the relationship between the creative flow of humanity and the Biosphere ( without humans )? hundred and seventy billion. As for harmfulness, let us remember about locusts, which destroy all vegetation on their way and other similar examples. Let's think about the biospheric "catastrophes" repeatedly occurring on Earth that at intervals of tens of millions of years have renewed up to half of the species composition of the living world. The last update led to the extinction of dinosaurs.

By the way, contrary to most of the versions of astronomers and science-fictionists , biological excavations convincingly testify to the fact that the dinosaurs "disappeared" for hundreds or thousands ( if not millions ) of years

By the way, if there was an animal protection society in those days, who would it have filed a complaint against? After all, only in fantasy novels 60 million years ago on the Earth were running around with small armsthey're either human ancestors or aliens.

Science has no facts about interference in the course of evolution of the Biosphere by any humanoid beings. If such facts appear, it would be very interesting for the author to familiarize will be established. I think it is more likely that system-wide laws will be established to control the evolution of the Biosphere, which will reveal the influence on this evolution of the processes going on in the whole Universe (and not in an experimental flask of aliens).

Thus, the history of the Biosphere shows that along with the appearance of new species in it, there was also the disappearance of old species. It is true that some of the most ancient species have survived on Earth to this day. Therefore, calls to keep everything on Earth intact are idealistic, unscientific, unrealistic and unpromising. The author does not call for mindless reorganization of the Earth's surface. This is the other extreme.

I am convinced that mankind needs to create, but in such a way as not to destroy itself and its planet. At the same time not to fall into the extreme of museum conservation of the current state of the Biosphere. For such an extreme ruins the creativity of human civilization in its infancy. Figuratively speaking, it leads to the dominance of the phenomenon of birth over the phenomenon of creation and, consequently, to the relegation of the human civilization to the status of a "nucleus". of humanity to the level of animal existence.

The author is not at all going to give here recipes on how to organize the creativity of civilization itself. All these considerations are necessary only for another purpose - to show more clearly how important the phenomenon of creation is for mankind in principle.

The juxtaposition of the phenomenon of creation and birth clearly suggests that the phenomenon of creation is far more significant than the phenomenon of birth. the birth of a new birth. If only because the first one happens only once, and also because it is always more difficult to create a new one than to repeat a previously created one. Therefore, in what follows we will build on the idea that creation is the most important and most interesting thing to us in nature.

Creation precedes birth - and it follows automatically that once the process of birth enters its stable phase of repetition of one form, creation over this particular form practically comes to naught.

The example of human civilization shows that, having created one layer of existence, people do not stop and move on to the next one. There is every reason to believe that the process of creation in the Universe never stops.

This raises the question of the "place" of the actual creation in the parametric space of being of the Universe.

Suppose that having "opened" the microcosm with all its baryons, leptons and resonances, the Universe left it in a perfect harmonious form and moved to the macro- and megaworld. In this case we can talk about moving the "focus of concentration of creation" along the S-axis. Of course, this focus can move not only along the scale dimension; most likely, it "wanders" according to a complex system law in the multidimensional parametric space of the Universe. Since we investigate in this paper the M-dimension, we will further emphasize the problem of moving the "focus of creation" along the S-axis. At the same time, at the first stage we will simplify our task to the limit and will not reflect on the scale "width" of the hypothetical "focus of creation", to what extent its scale edges are blurred, etc. We will speculate in the most general terms about trends, priorities, and preferences, but terminologically we will reduce everything to a simple movement along the S-axis of a certain point of concentration of creation.

Simplifying our task, we will further rely on the PROPOSITION that in the known universe there is only one single large-scale focus of the creation process at the present time, the creative tension in this focus is the highest and it is to this focus that the creative tension is directed. all the subtle threads of the information flows of the universe.

At the same time I would like to emphasize again the words "in the known Universe". I do not at all assert that the parametric focus of the Universal creation is one. Moreover, it is possible that even on one parameter, the S-axis, there are currently several of them. It is only a question of the fact that, investigating many different processes in their evolutionary unfolding, I purely intuitively came to the PROPOSITION that on the S-Axis there is for each time of development its own point of special limit evolutionary tension. We will analyze the consequences of this assumption in this part of the book. Based on this assumption, we can assume that S-AXIS MOTIVATES THE WAVE OF CREATION. And it moves from left to right, from the depths of matter to its upper floors.

This thesis is difficult to prove, relying on the cosmological database. If we go down to the Earth, then thanks to excavations, the chronicle of the evolution of forms of living beings will appear before us "documented".

We know that there were once no dinosaurs on Earth, for example. Then the species was created in the Biosphere, and dinosaurs were repeated for many millions of years in the process of many births. And although the dinosaurs were modified, they still remained exactly dinosaurs. Then this form disappeared, but a new form was created - mammals. Similarly, all species of living beings now existing on the Earth were once created for the first time.

So, if cosmologists assume that the Universe once had a creation of its basic systems: particles, atoms, stars and galaxies, biologists know for sure that there was a creation process on Earth. Moreover, unlike cosmologists, they can determine its sequence quite correctly.

It is very important to emphasize once again that scientific data undeniably testify that evolution on Earth proceeded in major stages - first all forms of unicellulars were developed, then multicellulars. In this connection, a curious question arises: has the process of creation in general ended on the scale of unicellular organisms after the Biosphere began an active process of creation at the multicellular scale?

After all, if we go back to the Universe, it is likely that neither new types of elementary particles nor new types of atoms are being created anymore. The stage of creation at this level of scale for the Universeof the Universe has remained far in the past. Figuratively speaking, on many floors of the universal hierarchy an ideal systemic order has been put in place, construction debris has been removed, all the rules of interaction have been prescribed, and the laws of nature work there clearly and unambiguously - "according to formulas".

We can quite understand the logic of these events, because man is no longer returning to many layers of being. For example, the process of domestication of animals, breeding of the main varieties of plants useful for humans, etc. has long since ended. Figuratively speaking, no one is inventing the wheel today. New forms and types of wheels may appear in response to new demands and new technological possibilities, but these are slight mutations within the limits of the once created "wheel principle". In any case, the creative tension is many orders of magnitude lower than in the process of attempts to create synthesis reactors.

Similarly, we can put forward the PROPOSITION that in the Biosphere, after the completion of a long period of creation on the single-cell floor, Nature moved on to creation on a higher scale floor, using single-cells already as working material. Undoubtedly, it had to modify many previously created cell forms.

Biologists often observe that many intracellular systems have precursors in single-celled organisms. An analogy to this process in human society can be found, for example, in the steam boiler, originally created for certain purposes, but later put on a steam locomotive, where it changed significantly. The same analogy can be found in the microcosm, where a free electron differs significantly from an electron included in a higher level system - an atom. Based on the data and intuition available to us, the POSTULATE a very important point: in the Biosphere, the wave of creation has long ago passed through the floor of unicellulars and has recently passed through the floor of multicellulars.

POSTULATE THAT THE FOCUS OF CREATION IN THE BIOSPHERE IS CURRENTLY AT THE POPULATION LEVEL OF SCALE.

Why are we so interested in where the focus of creation is? It is because the process of creation not only in the Biosphere, but also in the Universe, is the most complex, the most information-rich and, therefore, the most important process.

It can be assumed that the main "attention" of the Universe is concentrated around this process and all its resources, all subtle energies, all information flows are drawn to it, that is why the process of creation occupies the top line in the system of priorities of the Society, Biosphere and the Universe. There is no need to explain how important it is for humanity as a whole and for each individual to have the right system of harmoniously coordinated societal, biosphere and universal priorities.

Any human being can potentially participate harmoniously in the universal process of creation, otherwise he either hinders it by his own blindness and egoism, or is passive material. That is why it is so important to determine whether there are any focused points on the S-axis around which the most active and most important at this particular stage process of the emergence of new forms takes place. For if we accurately determine these coordinates, we will be able to correctly build the hierarchy of the value system in our daily activities. And then, subordinating secondary values to primary values, we will be able to achieve harmony with the Universe, consistency with the evolutionary process, and precise actualization of ourselves in time. Then the whole world in all its power will come to people's aid in every step, support them in all external affairs and give them a feeling of soft and harmonious movement in the world. Directionality of evolution in scale space.

So, if we limit the consideration of the question of evolution to the Biosphere, then, to a first approximation, we can PROPOSE that, when the focus of evolution moves along the S-axis, there is an attenuation of evolution in the whole area of the biosphere. of the range from which this focus leaves. If this is so, then on the floors of the large-scale structure of the Biosphere, which have completely finished their evolution, there is nothing principinally new and more complex Nature will not create any more. The evolution of viruses, bacteria, unicellular, fish, plants and animals is over. Therefore, the call for the preservation of all kinds of living organisms is extremely relevant - we have now in the Biosphere a perfect system of organisms, better than which nothing will be created on Earth! So, the completeness of biological evolution leads us to the necessity to recognize that WE LIVE IN THE BEST OF WORLDS... (excluding the social one).

In other words, Nature can no longer create a more perfect cat, dog, tiger, elephant, dolphin or butterfly. All species existing on the Earth today are the most perfect creations of Nature in general, as a whole, without regard to time and, perhaps, space. Out of all the potential diversity of forms and structures, Nature has chosen and left the most perfect and the best on the Earth by the time Man appeared.

It is true that the conclusion about the completeness of the Biosphere evolution at first sight contradicts the results of selection work of man himself, who created new varieties of plants and new breeds of animals, but can we say that these varieties are more perfect than their wild ancestors? They are more convenient for man himself, nothing more. None of the artificial species are fixed in the wild. Consequently, they are all secondary results of social evolution, not biological evolution anymore. This is not the evolution of the Biosphere, but its modification under the conditions of civilization development. After all, when a Japanese grows a dwarf pine tree on his window sill, from the point of view of the Biosphere, he only uglifies its beautiful creation. Therefore, while further change in the Biosphere is ongoing, this in no way contradicts the conclusion reached earlier that the evolution of organisms on Earth ended at the moment (stretched, of course, for many thousands of years) of the appearance of man on Earth.

So, we repeat - the focus of creation on the S-axis is in the center of the third area of the protein size range (see Fig. 3.1). It follows from this that the highest tension of the Biosphere evolution has now reached the scale interval of population forms, in its social layer.

It is here that Nature is now creating systems new to the Universe, gradually increasing their complexity, diversity and strengthening their integrity. The latter is achieved through harmonization of relationships within human communities. Based on the assumptions made and the consequences of them, we can PROPOSE THAT NATURE CREATED THE HUMAN BIOLOGICAL SPECIES for the construction of the next huge scale floor of the hierarchical building of the biosphere - from the center floor.

What are the author's reasons for drawing this conclusion? Very simple.

First, social systems have greater energy power compared to biocenosis.

Second, social systems are much more complexly organized already if only because they include all previous scale levels, and are much more operationally and holistically organized to respond to the challenge of the external environment.

Thirdly, we see that social systems have been rapidly developing for the last at least five thousand years. All this indicates that the focus of evolutionary processes in the Biosphere is not in general - in the third scale interval, but specifically - in its social slice.

Fourth, only social systems are capable of further advancing biological life from Earth to Space, i.e., they are capable of continuing the movement of evolution up the S-axis by creating space civilizations.

To summarize. The majority of observational data available to science on the development and evolution of systems at different scale levels of the Universe testify to the following, that EVOLUTION OF WORLD OBJECTS CONTINUES WITH GROWTH OF SIZE.

We are far from absolutizing this rule . It is possible that in some specific cases evolution is reducing the size of systems , while at the same time compressing or fragmenting them into component parts. However, so far, the author has been unable to find an example of such a character

This rule has both individual, species and system-wide significance. Indeed, the development of any animal occurs from an embryo in the process of its growth. The development of the entire Biosphere, too, occurs as the size of its systems increases.

Therefore, the shift of the entire protein interval along the S-axis to the right by 5 orders of magnitude is far from accidental. It testifies that life as a subsystem of the Universe also develops in general in the direction of size increase.

It is possible that in this movement life is ahead of the entire Universe. After all, according to the model of the expanding Universe, for the last 3.5 billion years (when the Biosphere was developing) the boundary of the Metagalaxy has moved along the S-axis only half an order to the right, from the size of \(10^{28}\) cm to the size of \(10^{28.5}\) cm. Life, however, having started its development from primordial cells (\(10^{-3}\) cm), during the same time interval shifted its center of evolution to the meter size of organisms (\(10^{2}\) cm), i.e. 5 orders to the right, and subsequently by another 5 orders M — to the area of population forms (\(10^{7}\) cm). At the same time, the focus of evolutionary tension shifted to the right along the S-axis.

So, concluding the introduction, let us outline the initial positions. It is very likely that the evolution of life on Earth can be correctly divided into three separate large stages: unicellular, multicellular, and population forms. Further, we can make a very bold PROPOSITION that the "focus of evolution" moves along the S-axis from left to right.

For the Biosphere, this means: at the present moment, the "focus of evolution" is concentrated on the third site of the protein range, while on the two preceding ones, evolution as a whole has already been completed.

Another PROPOSAL: at present, the maximum tension of the evolutionary process in the Biosphere, which can be represented as one of the parametric layers of the third section of the protein range, is concentrated in the field of social structures.

Let us now consider how these assumptions about the stepwise shift of the focus of evolution along the S-axis can be reconciled with the central position of the cell in the scale space of the Universe and of man in the scale space of the Biosphere. For this purpose, we will analyze each of the three parts of the protein range, or each of the three stages of the evolution of life on Earth, from the position of the scale regularities revealed in the previous parts of the work. At the same time, we will compare these regularities with the assumption of the central focus of evolutionary tension in the social range of scales.