Fund “Achievements of natural sciences for solution of society problems”
St.-Petersburg, (812) 352-88-95, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Problems of measurements, information and association of sciences
Association of sciences is very extensive problem. If we shall start to list all requirements to it we risk to demand impossible and to pass for schemers. It is possible to go on the other hand, for example, as to dietologies where quality of products is defined by the standard - Maximum permissible Concentration of Harmful Substances. For bases of sciences there is no standard on maximum permissible norms of the abstract ideas that have been not confirmed by measurements. For mathematical, geometrical and logic objects and operations above them there is no standard on maximum permissible norms of the abstract ideas contradicting objects and interactions in the real nature. In due course abstract ideas expand in the problems complicating or at all stopping development of sciences. There are many works, devoted to gathering and the analysis of experimental effects and the phenomena that are not entered in frameworks of traditional natural sciences. These are original collections of "dark spots” of sciences; their review far is beyond given clause. Therefore we shall be limited only to the analysis of some bases of our traditional natural sciences. It concretizes requirements to “the incorporated science” a little.
Keywords: the information, quality of the information, compression of the information, space, time, matter, coordinate system, logic, mechanics, natural sciences, catastrophe, synergetics, self-organization, brain, neurones of a brain, neurophysiology, society.
The last centuries our civilization under direction of scientists easy and fruitfully used two-place formal logic (yes - not, 1 - 0). But development of quantum mechanics has put before a science a lot of the problems connected with measurement as by those (object - the device, a particle - a wave, a discrete - a continuity, …) which till now are not resolved. And the classical mechanics has not promoted further the common decision of a problem of interaction two ph. With development of genetics and neurophysiology it has appeared, that for understanding of the information there is nothing, except for битов both probabilities. Therefore and the biology lags behind development of not intellectual nature: cannot expect occurrence of new bacteria, viruses, microbes. At last, with development of the theory of elementary particles, quarks and strings we began to understand, that badly understood properties (especially regularities) spaces and time. And philosophers for all centuries could not promote in disputes about real (material) and abstract (ideal).
The impression is made, as the oldest and young sciences survey everyone the floor (level) of the organization of the nature with its mysterious premises. And each science will come across the walls (barrier), and each science is powerless to understand these barriers. The base of a building "nature", the general lay-out and properties of walls of this building while remain secrets.
2. THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF SEPARATE SCIENCES
2.1. NUMBERS and SYSTEMS of CALCULATION are more productive for considering as much as possible wide way of reflection of a reality thinking of people and a science. It is possible to consider, that this way possesses the maximal (absolute) accuracy, one-value, linearity. But, on the other hand, it is as much as possible abstracted from a reality and contains a minimum of the information on it. It is not included into the contradiction that at concrete reflections (measurements, estimations) we in some cases are compelled to use probabilities, statistics, errors as the last - only more complex logical-mathematical constructions. All further construction of the theory of numbers occurred within the limits of the abstract-like approach, not being reconstructed under more and more cognizable device of the nature.
For example, after introduction of irrational numbers (infinite not periodic numbers) and with development of the theory of measurements and computer facilities, scientists are not asked by a following question. These numbers do not give in to exact calculation. How they are "calculated" with cooperating bodies in the nature? Or use other methods of calculations, or other ways of their representation, or other "theories", or manage at all them or their some part?
2.2. ARITHMETIC, and all mathematics, is based on operation of addition (and subtraction). But the interaction, similar to addition of numbers in arithmetic, is not present in the nature. There cooperating systems form the expanded system with new properties. In arithmetic at operation of addition the information about initial composed is lost, already this operation brings the irreversibility on which actively argue now and which try to understand in much more complex physical and mathematical constructions. In our logic and in the real nature, for example, two speeds, twice smaller speeds of light, are not equivalent to one speed of light. Here two different aspects - what numbers and how many they - are degenerate in one result - number. The information is lost.
The same situation has developed and with operation of multiplication - with the reduced record of addition of identical numbers. Whether it is necessary to be surprised, that all several centuries ago the theory of dimensions (and the science as a whole, without a sufficient substantiation) began to apply this operation and to numbers of different quality, for example, 2 х сек = сек х 2. Operations of exponentiation, for example, сек х сек = (сек)2, etc.
2.3. The MATHEMATICS and GEOMETRY is a lot of centuries back were considered as sciences, but sciences abstract. Then them began to apply successfully to dialogue between people and for the description of the elementary properties of the nature (quantity of subjects, time, distances…). Now it is attribute the increasing and greater value. So greater value that there is a confidence of an opportunity to study property of the nature, manipulating (juggling) only by mathematical and geometrical concepts and operations (so theories of the information, catastrophes, synergetic, fractals are under construction…). Presently scientific representations about properties of the nature already send (have grown) for frameworks of bases of mathematics and the geometry, the centuries formalized many back. Their internal contradictions, contradictions between them and their discrepancy to "construction" of the nature began to be shown:
- Between any two numbers are the same quantity of numbers, what and between any others two numbers, what and all of them total quantity.
- The piece of a straight line contains as much points, how many and an infinite straight line.
- Pieces of straight line different length (consisting of identical points) contain these points identical quantity.
- From points we in any way logically and mathematically shall not collect a straight line, and a straight line we cannot divide into points.
- From a straight line (or a line) we shall not collect a plane (or a surface)….
- We can divide number into two and we shall receive two equal numbers, but we cannot divide a piece of a straight line on two equal parts, since it is not known where to carry an average point.
- If one body will long move on a straight line, and another - is perpendicular to it they will meet in one point – infinity.
- If two persons will start to move from one point on one straight line to one party, but with different speeds, they simultaneously will arrive to last point ("infinity").
In abstract conclusions, certainly, in a basis it is possible to believe much. There is such situation and in integral calculus, in particular, with definition of uncertain integral to within any constant. In the physicist when it is a question of time or coordinate is for the present tolerantly. We have got used to that the physics has entered and for energy uncertainty up to any constant. But if it is a question of speed, acceleration, the area, volume … - there are contradictions. For example, with same formulas F=ma and E=mc2.
When we write down a derivative or differential, we lose opportunities to consider processes at deeper level of the organization of a matter. When spatial coordinate seek to infinity, we deprive with ourselves an opportunity of the account of processes on top levels of the organization of a matter. That we deprive with themselves an opportunity of transition from two-level representations about the nature - to three-level representations.
The mathematics and geometry have two weak points - zero and infinity. The mathematics has solved them philosophically: has entered artful variables which many centuries aspire and aspire: one - to zero, others - to infinity…. And nobody knows, and cannot authentically know: they have reached the purposes, or not, and when it is reached. And the modern natural sciences have not found out them, but all piously trust: if we so think - means, it is possible.
There is one deeper problem - number of measurements of spaces. The theory of fractals was not over-modest and has entered fractional numbers of measurements, then irrational …. Anyway, it is new and it is original …. Now Scientifics think out properties to spaces with the number of measurements equal to zero …
2.4. TIME in a traditional science this some uniform property of the nature, in particular, it allocates also people from a birth. With the purpose of greater understanding of time to it try to attribute some properties: continuity or discrete, convertibility or irreversibility, uniformity or non-uniformity, scalar or orientations and regularities, independence of a reference mark and of a measure by which it measure.... Not speaking about infinite minuteness the moment named by the present. Here at all volume, that the majority of these properties it is difficult to understand problems unequivocally. Them problem is impossible neither theoretically, nor experimentally to prove. And meanwhile all our life experience prompts us, that, applying concept "time" to the description, for example, process of interaction between two concrete people, we can assume:
- And its opportunity breaking,
- And finiteness of the moment of the present,
- And an opportunity of its non-uniformity (especially at catastrophes and similar processes),
- And possible breaking interactions as those and their basic difference from other (continuous) interactions studied in a science….
On the other hand, if time and extents (space) - the main properties inherent in the nature there is a question: these properties are dependent or independent among themselves? Is more often we accepts dependence of coordinate on time but then should be and a feedback. For the first time in a science such communication has been offered in the Special Theory of the Relativity (STR). Its conclusion - in mobile and motionless systems of coordinates existential dependences are various. There Is not clear one "trifle" - what exactly varies: or only a measure of time, or only intervals measured by her, or both that and another, but on - to a miscellaneous? The same ambiguity remains with lengths, and with weights. Never-ending disputes of scientists proceed. And in fact in it are involved also problems of other sort - with dimensions of space. And even more complex and less investigated problems - with dimensions of physical sizes.
2.5. MEASUREMENTS have arisen many centuries back and in those areas where they actually did not influence measured object (distances on a surface of the Earth). In astronomy it is still tolerant. But it is now not clear, how it was reflected in construction of optics and the theory of electromagnetism. For the first time seriously to think of measurements have begun in the beginning of the last century with development of quantum mechanics, but also today the role of the device in measurements and has remained up to the end not understood. A problem already that the device here acts already in a role of the additional object cooperating with investigated objects which and in classical that to the mechanic was only two and where the problem of three bodies in a general view is not solved till now.
Besides now we easy use numbers irrational, at all not thinking of consequences of introduction of infinity in the form of record of number. And in fact no modern computer facilities, basically, can calculate even any small final part of such number. One decision of this problem is found in measurements - introduction of errors and corresponding sections of mathematics only. But it is very doubtful, that, for example, two also act (or more) cooperating bodies or a charge. The same remark can be made and concerning numbers complex, vectors and so forth Comes it is time to think of results of the theories including irrationalities:
- Or it is caused by "primitiveness" of the physical approach,
- Or "primitiveness" of computing methods, including even forms of representation of numbers,
- Or the scientist with the device of measurement essentially differs by nature,
- Or the nature enough the "approached" interactions ….
Simple example. In the mathematician the cartesian and spherical systems of coordinates communicate simply and unequivocally. In a science, in the theory of measurements, between them there is infinite acyclic and, hence, essentially not measured number . That behind it the nature hides - to us is not conducted.
Other example. For comparison of lengths we use the standard of meter. For comparison of the areas of surfaces we too use it. Whether but so the nature acts?
2.6. The CLASSICAL MECHANICS is also a classical example of the abstract approach to studying the nature. In the classical mechanics consider only two levels of the organization of a matter. One consists of two dot particles with the zero sizes and final weights, hence, with infinite density, which in the nature is not found out. Other level - the inertial system of readout connected with the center of weights of these moving particles. Hence, forces dos not operate from the outside on system, the system is isolated. And to judge, whether the system rectilinearly and in regular intervals and with which speed moves, or it is based, - is simple not scientifically (and today even it is antiscientific). Accordingly, and the principle of a relativity does not give us any knowledge adequate to the nature. In particular, we in STR we draw two systems of coordinates, one of which we name mobile, another - motionless. But it is only opinion of those who draws. It is an additional index in designations of coordinates and no more. Today it is not so serious, it is not scientific the approach. Also there is it from representations, which seem to our far ancestors clear as 2х2=4, down to firmness up to that such it is really possible in the nature. (echoing our scientific ancestors, today and our legislators are assured, that development of a intellectual matter in the nature will start to occur under laws which they will think up.).
As inertial systems of readout are not found out in the real nature also the idea is deprived sense about similarity of laws in different parts of the nature.
Further, in the traditional physics it is considered, that infinitely it is a lot of inertial systems of readout, and as on them forces, hence, they infinitely distant friend from the friend … do not operate.
Besides, the classical mechanics starts with isotropy and uniformity of absolutely empty space, which as is not revealed. And how it to find out until it empty?! Such three-dimensional space should be named ideal, mathematical, abstract or subjective; in fact it exists only in our imagination.
The classical mechanics is a typical example of development of sciences. In the beginning - ideas, then - mathematics and devices, then - "crop". … But the theory does not develop! The classical mechanics has not developed neither in the quantum mechanics, nor in STR, nor in the General Theory of the Relativity. They have demanded absolutely other ideas. The classical mechanics till now has not solved in a general view even own problem of three bodies.... Imagine arithmetic, in which it is possible to put two numbers and it is impossible to put three numbers ….
And what the classical mechanics has solved? It has described mathematically only one concrete, most simple interaction between two bodies. And how to compare among themselves two interactions - the recipe is not present! Is not present "measures" of interaction as those, there are no «reference» interactions, and even ideas while are not present…. And the mathematics does not help.
Defining the gravitational field created by a body in some point of space by work on moving of a trial body from this point on infinity (or on the contrary), our ancestors did not reflect, in what system of coordinates work it is counted up and as basically such it is possible to carry out (without the god). For example, in the system of coordinates connected with a body, or with the center of weights of a body and a trial body, or in the system connected with a trial body! And in fact about the law of conservation of energy depends on it down to its unrecognizability! On the other hand, if potential energy at two bodies the general it is not clear how it to divide between them (and how many to attribute to space between bodies).
2.7. TWO-LEVEL APPROACHES. Appeared rather recently synergetic and theories of catastrophes, bifurcations и and fractals (developing in many respects owing to I.Prigozhin's works on nonequilibrium thermodynamics), are called to find the general similar features of the most complex moments in different sciences. In such, as catastrophes, bifurcations, phase transitions, transients, metamorphosises, reorganizations, losses of stability, self-organizing…. But at the primary construction they do not reflect at all on such properties of the nature as multi -levels, etc. For example, the theory of catastrophes is under construction on two-level dynamics, and in the bases of synergetic about any real interactions is not spoken. At the same time conclusions from them are offered even as recommendations for the organization of a society, it very much even in spirit of time.
Two – levels of these approaches are done while impossible with construction of theories of the alive and, especially, of intellectual matter necessary for understanding of multilevel and various processes of interactions: in genes, in cells, in ecology, in a brain, in a society.
Besides a matter (all nature) and all its properties are indissolubly connected and consistent, and scientists of each direction of natural sciences study only their some part, and the tools. Results are stated (laws are deduced) in the languages, and so specific, that scientists of different directions do not understand each other. Accordingly, they cannot use in the work of achievement of scientific other directions. The science cannot unite neither all the knowledge, nor all mental potential. Inside of the science of a wall is much more unapproachable, than language barriers or some years of training of one more speciality, - walls which in the nature studied by a science are not present. For example, for understanding of processes in such part of the nature as the person or its brain and genes, - neither an impulse and energy of these systems, nor them entropy, neither informatics, nor laws Hooke or Ohms … - do not bring the direct help. Other example. In the nature transitions between a firm and liquid condition of substance occur under the uniform law for firm, liquid and intermediate conditions of substance. In a science reflecting it, exist very different 3 has undressed: physics of a rigid body, hydrodynamics and the theory of catastrophes.
Quantum mechanics, the theory of a field and the general theory of relativity in it are similar to the classical mechanics. Probably, therefore the role of the device in measurements has remained obscure, physical vacuums with real properties, multivariate (up to 11 dimensions and the self-coordinated fields are entered into theories of strings) and curve spaces, the dark weights, hidden energy and complex time (in theories of strings) and much another, not less strange for our experience and logic. It seems, that to all our together taken visionaries it is far up to those imaginations, which lay in the bases of sciences.
In one of the most ancient and most useful sciences - thermodynamics - too it is a lot of “dark spots” (look below - “entropy”). For example, it is not possible to explain, that use in molecular dynamics of electric potential considerably increases disagreements with experiment in comparison with the potentials, which scientifically have been not proved.
In the atom, nuclear physics, and in physicists of elementary particles, quarks, strings it is even more “dark spots”, because they - more complex constructions on the same inconsistent and obsolete base. On this "base" of reasoning on the first minute of origin of the Universe - strange enough employment.
2.8. LOGIC, formal logic which we use in researches - two-place: yes/no present, the true/lie, the reason/consequence, the past/future, development/degradation, a wave/particle, inertial/ not inertial, micro/macro, a trajectory/wave function, convertibility/irreversibility, a reality/abstraction, etc. Our ancestors considered, that such logic, which is not image properties of a matter and processes in the nature, is initially inherent, ostensibly, in our thinking. Once, at the beginning of development of a society, it brought the mite in development of thinking, but now it develops is isolated from natural sciences. Ever less it is used and in a life, for a long time has ceased to be a basis of thinking and behavior of people. People with two-place logic – is already primitive. Means, it mismatches logic of work of a brain, logic of interactions in a society, logic of the nature, which laws operate us. The probability theory, combination theory, the theory of the information, the mixed conditions and wave functions of quantum mechanics, development indistinct logics and artificial neuron networks - have not relieved in formal logic its main lacks (two-value and abstractiveness). Everything, that is connected with the information, too while is under construction on logic two-value.
2.9. The INFORMATION has some definitions, but any of them does not contain neither matters as those, nor interactions peculiar to it. For example, when we argue on occurrence of zero or unit or about throwing a coin, we do not reflect, during what moment the information appears, where its quantity has decreased, where has increased, to whom it to attribute - a coin, to the observer, system “a coin + a table”, or system “a coin + the observer”, and can be - to the one who throws…. In this sense and all traditional theory of the information, and informatics as a whole (without taking into account electric and thermal processes in iron) - while completely abstract mathematical (and technical) discipline, which contacts with physical processes by art and imagination of the researcher, i.e. it is subjective (home-made).
Let's recollect, that basic definition of the information has entered Hartley: H=log2 2n, where n - number of parcels on the binary code transferred consistently in time (on one channel). It is very little helpful result of very abstract process. And already here (and in more complex definitions of the information - in a greater degree) there is aprioristic knowledge:
1. About length of a code (here it binary and consequently elementary parcels can represent only one of two possible values),
2. About the semantic maintenance of each of possible values of a code,
3. About number elementary посылок (here it n), necessary for transfer of one letter,
4. About number of possible letters (about length of the alphabet, here it 2n, and in fact in a reality not everything, basically possible, combinations parcels in the length n, can be used by transfer of the information or mean something comprehended),
5. About the semantic maintenance of each of letters….
All listed here is aprioristic knowledge, which does not appear at all at the person accepting the information, as a result of its efforts on its reception. A kind of formula Hartley (H=log2 2n) thus is not principled. The formula, as those, could be any unequivocal function. In fact the logarithm (moreover, certain basis of it) does not follow from any physical properties of the nature. To measure quantity of the information, basically, it would be possible both in tens, and dozens parcels (now in a course, for example, kilobytes) is not essentially. Also how to measure length in meters or steps, or to accept standards for the sizes of footwear, clothes…. As a matter of fact, we no are known physical, substantial properties of the information, except for its name.
For understanding of processes in the person, in its brain and genes the informatics brings huge, but only indirect, technical help, despite even on such directions, as artificial neuron networks. But on the other hand, constructed on two-value abstract logic and the theory of the information, the informatics for a long time became multilevel (for example, at construction of algorithmic programs, information networks).
Transfer of the information, for example, on the Internet at interaction of two subjects, occurs on one channel - one-dimensional and is discrete in time. It is not anything of general with traditional description of a gravitational field in three-dimensional space. Thus and the Internet quite legally consider as a web, a network of interactions (one-dimensional lines communications in two- and three-dimensional spaces, but these regularities do not render essential influence on a network!). Existing attempts to connect the information with physics (nature), to present it as certain neg-entropy, also do not appear fruitful.
2.10. ENTROPY, more precisely - its differential is defined as the attitude of elementary quantity of heat, qusistatically received by system, to temperature. And here we today see the whole bouquet of ambiguities, even if "differential" to let alone. It:
- What is the elementary quantity of energy?
- What is qusistatical process?
- How we manage to divide elementary quantity of energy on average energy and to receive an infinitesimal increment of entropy?
The second beginning of thermodynamics (about not decrease entropy of adiabatic isolated system) does not bring the clearness in understanding entropy, adds new ambiguities more likely. If we are inside of this system - we cannot judge discrepancy or consistency of that, than we operate (theorem of Gödel). If we are outside of the isolated system we cannot judge it at all, because it is isolated.
2.11. The GENETICS yet has no own strict theory, it initially multilevel (chromosomes - genes - DNA…). Processes at a level of genes are similar to processes in informatics, only duplication of the information rare, and the estimation and display of quality of the new information - long, occurs in current of a life of the individual, in which it contain. Now researchers are still keen by accumulation of the experimental results, which are usually given out for the next opening. Therefore and to make to genetics any demands it is a little bit premature, more likely requirements to other sections of natural sciences can help to geneticists is more rational to spend intellectual and financial resources. But also results, already received by them, force us to reflect on much. For example:
- Why the majority of genes appear "sleeping" during a life of one or several individuals,
- Under what external conditions one "fall asleep" and others "wake up",
- Why some different genes in different chromosomes are responsible for display of same attributes (or deviations, diseases),
- As mutations, division and merge of a genetic material issue, etc.
Answers to these questions will help and with association of sciences, and, hence, to other sciences in their development, in particular - to the theory of the information.
2.12. The BRAIN the last century was successfully described on the basis of the two-level theories based on organism-level or its functional representation as system, consisting of two cooperating subsystems: two hemispheres, cortexes and subcortexes, consciousnesses and sub-consciousness. Today it is already rough approaches. The logic of processes in a brain is those, that its two-level description is appears not productive (does not arrange neuron-physiologist). And it supposes weight for an arbitrariness of psychologists. All researchers of a brain today have no uniform serious theory.
There are millions neurons in a brain, everyone cooperates difficultly and insufficiently clearly with thousands others neurons. Existential schemes at different brains essentially differ. And similarity while is expressed that the brain is divided into the specific predisposed zones (only predisposed!) for working off of those or other functions of an. Neuron-physiologists cannot to understand it, certainly,. Therefore while they modestly converge that possess a huge experimental material about defects and illnesses of a brain, but do not understand that such a brain healthy is. Same if the mechanics imagining everything that in the nature should not be, but not understanding that in the nature is would be good! (But if it is strict to it to concern, we have just such mechanics.)
The multilevel informatics with artificial neuron networks qualitatively is more primitive than a brain and on multi-levels as a whole, and on dynamics of reorganization of levels in space and time. But the main problem in studying a brain is in abstraction of the concept of the information from properties of a matter. We shall notice that work of a brain, on the one hand, it is constant and continuous, with another - it is discrete, partial as well as processes of transfer and processing of the information in informatics. On the one hand, a brain is volumetric (three-dimensional), on the other hand, - signals on neurons it is quite possible to consider, that a brain, similarly to signals in informatics, is one-dimensional. I.e. a brain – is a three-dimensional ball of one-dimensional interactions (if to not consider blood system, brain liquid and electromagnetic rhythms). Again problems are anyhow reduced to communications between space and time, to number of measurements, step-type behaviour and continuity.
Like, the brain, this main tool of knowledge, within centuries is continuously improved. But that is improved while “in itself, spontaneously, in a casual direction ”. Or under the law of Darwin of evolution vegetative and fauna: survived the rights because has survived; otherwise, the result justifies means: otherwise, what was result, it is always optimum only because is dictated by laws of the nature…. Last interpretation is already actually conformable with religion. Physical, structural and information properties of a brain were not embodied yet in the corresponding theory of intellectual matter, which could warn from between - human catastrophes (contradictions, collisions, antagonisms). Probably, because the brain is created, formed at education and training at the best by two-level tools. Today becomes clear, that for the best understanding of properties of the nature, it is necessary to know properties of main tool of knowledge better. Functionally it can be compared to a specific organism, which:
- Eats the information through several channels,
- Digests and thus changes of it,
- The digested information extorts (too on several channels).
But we do not know, than it "eats", we do not understand, how it "digests" and we can not estimate formal and unequivocal results, consequences (both for the given brain, and for cooperating with it) of its functioning. What we can to expect from thus adjusted brains, from such our main tools of knowledge of the nature?
2.13. LANGUAGES of a society arose in an extreme antiquity, they are very inertial, updated slowly, and because they are subject to "moral" ageing, alike ideas about properties of the nature. It is necessary to tell, as our ancestors, and we selves in many respects are limited in the actions by laws of the nature. But we do not feel and we do not understand consequences of an inventing of new words. Thus it is necessary to mean, that the lexicon of the person is its same tool of knowledge, as well as a science. Thus the majority of words at us are indistinct on semantic value. They are understood on a miscellaneous both different people, and one person in different conditions and at various times its lives, and in different contexts. Redundancy of the existing developed languages (by some estimation) is within the limits of 4-5, i.e., without a great bulk of words people could with advantage for themselves are released. It is necessary to tell, that in fauna a similar situation. Last researches of sounds of animals have shown that their greater part is not connected not so with desire of an animal to transfer the information, and it is simple involuntary consequence of physiological processes. Probably, this their property was transformed to us and understood by scientists as information redundancy of our languages.
It is possible to tell, that the word is a complex composition of senses, to what dictionaries of words testify. In the quantum mechanics complex wave function too is represented in the form of a composition of basic functions. Only in a life it is more complex, since we express senses through the same words (other senses), and language has more rules, and not so they are strict …. Besides means of dialogue, and difficult for formalization, a mimicry, poses, smells, clothes, etc. are even more complex.
2.14. The SOCIETY on complexity and a variety of processes in it is surpasses a brain (and informatics) not only quantitatively, but also is qualitative: cooperating objects move in space. Any serious (exact) science is not in a condition even to rise to studying processes in a society. While our society is like to the wanderer without a rudder, a sails, a compass and in a fog. But it still very soft comparison. A trouble is in that all huge experimental material on our own (historical) organization basically cannot relieve us of mistakes in the future. Till that time while it will not be collected and compressed in some theory of development of a intellectual matter. This theory should allow to make a certain unique choice from huge number of potentially possible interactions in it (both is material, and information), on any level of the organization of a society, between any people or groups of people, in any a place of space and in any time.
Our reality now is other. Similarly to mankind in inventing new words, legislators do not limit themselves in inventing new laws. These are new combinations of words, which, at times, "morally" become outdated earlier, than to what they are written will familiarize with them. But inventing of laws is even more sad, and large they are not suitable for the use already during the moment of their inventing as do not lean on knowledge of laws of the nature. For all history of a society it is not thought up any more the law, which would correspond to any steady long processes in the nature. The level of scientific character in this area does not exceed a level of scientific character of representations of our far ancestors about on what the Earth - on three foundations or seven elephants keeps. If the society spent forces less for an inventing of laws, and it is more on studying of laws of the nature our today's society already would become by intellectual matter. However we till now, at the best, a matter dreaming:
- One part of a matter thinks out laws for other part and dreams, that other part of a matter on them will develop,
- Other part dreams that someone will once think up the law arranging of all.
Arguing on ways of development and resulting examples from history, we that look "back" on time. And anything other to us does not remain as to see, distinguish something ahead, in the inevitable future - or we are completely not capable, or we are extreme near-sighted.
2.15. The ECOLOGY is defined by interaction of a society with an environment. But thus we do not know laws of the nature on which these complex systems develop, in particular, we do not know our own internal laws operating us, as a part of the nature. Therefore we cannot optimize the interactions with environment surrounding us, yet we shall not understand laws of development of a intellectual matter. Until then our interaction with the nature reminds a chess duel at which each course only worsens a situation of one party - a situation of a civilization. As to the nature as those, less a civilization, - it is indifferent, what it was, what it is also what it becomes. Scientific understanding of interaction of processes in the nature as a whole is absent at us. It generates also it will be inevitable to generate conflicts in a society because of the different attitude to any our changes in the nature.
2.16. PHYSICS of PROCESSES. All our sciences began with assignment to a subject (or to the phenomenon) names, then its properties through measurements, i.e. comparisons with other subject (or the phenomenon), in particular - with the standard, are studied. Actually measurement is reduced to definition of quantity of some quality.
But we do not have standards for plants, animal, people, groups of people and, the more so, - for ideas, the information (bats give nothing to us for definition of sense). Probably, the matter is that the main feature, interesting us, is that all complex alive and intellectual systems - certain clots of processes of internal interactions (instead of it is simple subjects or the phenomena). But, these processes too require for the comparison and studying something similar to the standard, it while is not present. Besides these processes (similarly to bodies) cooperate among themselves, a certain complex hierarchy of processes of interactions cooperating among themselves, which waits for the studying turns out.
We come to an idea, that if to undertake updating and association of existing sciences, it is necessary to put two purposes:
- To unite different directions of natural sciences among themselves and with sciences of the humanitarian plan,
- The result of association should be apply to any interactions, in particular, at a level of genes, neurons and members of a society, and as consequence, it is easily understood and accepted by any members of a society.
Philosophers are assured, that knowledge of laws of the nature - infinite process. Can, time has come to clean from knowledge abstract infinities? Whether the result will be named by physics of processes, or physics of the real nature, or physics of the intellectual matter, including and the physicist of an alive and "dead" matter, or otherwise, - is not important.