employee from 01.01.2017 to 01.01.2026
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDC 007.5
UDC 330.46
UDC 004.8
CSCSTI 12.09
The scientific worldview is divided into an ever-increasing number of sections. The disorder and fragmentation of connections between them lead to a loss of predictability of complex systems and crises of governance in the economy, culture, science, and technology. The article presents a solution to this problem based on the cross-cutting concepts of algorithm and subject. An algorithm describes the laws of nature and the transformation of corresponding information, which allows for considering natural and humanitarian processes from a common perspective. The launch and interruption of these algorithms are carried out by control subjects corresponding to the arbitrary-creative behaviour of living systems. These categories made it possible to reveal the natural hierarchy of the patterns of nature and the subjects controlling them, from the atomic to the planetary-ecosystem level. The integration of the natural, humanitarian, and information fields achieved in this way provides a basis for a holistic picture of the world, which is necessary for the predictable and sustainable self-governance of modern society.
algorithm, subject, process, system, control, hierarchy, ontology
1. Brushlinsky A.V. On the Relationship Between Cybernetics, Mathematics, and Psychology. Psychology of Thinking and Cybernetics. Moscow: Mysl; 1970. p. 161-185.
2. Larson S.D., Gleeson P., Brown A.E.X. Connectome to Behaviour: Modelling Caenorhabditis Elegans at Cellular Resolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2018;373(1758):20170366. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0366.
3. Weizsäcker E.U., Wijkman A. Come On! Capitalism, Short-Termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet. New York: Springer New York; 2018. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7419-1.
4. Richardson K, Steffen W, Lucht W, et al. Earth Beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries. Science Advances. 2023;9(37):1-17. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.
5. Zhelnin A.I. Essence and perspectives of human in the context of problem of sociobiological crisis. Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology. 2016;3(27):22-26. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2016-3-22-26.
6. Moen R.D., Norman C.L. Circling Back: Clearing up Myths About the Deming Cycle and Seeing How It Keeps Evolving. Quality Progress. 2010;11:22-28.
7. Surov I.A. Life Cycle: Semantic Matrix of Process Modelling. Ontology of Design. 2022;12(4):430-453. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18287/2223-9537-2022-12-4-430-453.
8. Bateson G. The Cybernetics of “Self”: A Theory of Alcoholism. Psychiatry. 1971;34(1):1-18. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1971.11023653.
9. Bateson G. Mind in Nature. A Necessary Unity. New York: E.P. Dutton; 1979. p. 187-202.
10. Medawar P., Medawar J. The Life Science. Moscow: Mir; 1983. 207 p.
11. Wiener N. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Moscow: Sovetskoe Radio; 1968. 330 p.
12. Novikov D.A. Cybernetics (Navigator). Moscow: Lenand; 2015. 160 p.
13. Kaklyugin A.S., Norman G.E. Hierarchical Approach – Generalization of Vitalism and Reductionism. Rossiyskiy Khimicheskiy Zhurnal. 2000:7-20.
14. Simon H.A. The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1962;106(6):467-482.
15. Kadomtsev B.B. Dynamics and Information. Advances in Physical Sciences. 1994;164(5):449-530.
16. Fuster J.M. Upper processing stages of the perception–action cycle. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2004; 8(4):143–145. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.004.
17. Miller J.L. The Timer. Behavioral Science. 1990;35(3):164-196. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830350302.
18. Flack J. Life’s Information Hierarchy ed. S. I. Walker, P. C. W. Davies, G. F. R. Ellis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 283–302. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584200.012.
19. Harari Yu.N. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Moscow: Sinbad; 2018. 414 p.
20. Sapolsky R. Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Alpina Non-Fiction; 2024. 534 p.
21. Kravtsov A.Yu. "Randomness, determinateness, and predictability" Soviet Physics Uspekhi. 1989:(32):434–449. DOI https://doi.org/10.3367/UFNr.0158.198905c.0093.
22. Kofler J., Zeilinger A. Quantum Information and Randomness. European Review. 2010;18(4):469-480. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798710000268.
23. Hameroff S. Consciousness, Cognition and the Neuronal Cytoskeleton – A New Paradigm Needed in Neuroscience. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. 2022;15:869935. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2022.869935.
24. Grib A.A. Quantum Indeterminism, and Free Will. Philosophy of Science. 2009;14(1):5-24.
25. Surov I.A. Quantum Concept of Free Choice. Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2023;3(4):68-82. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.38098/proceedings_2023_03_04_07.
26. Balázsi G., Van Oudenaarden A., Collins J.J. Cellular Decision Making and Biological Noise: From Microbes to Mammals. Cell. 2011;144(6):910-925. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.01.030.
27. Hardwick L.J.A., Philpott A. Nervous Decision-Making: To Divide or Differentiate. Trends in Genetics. 2014;30(6):254-261. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2014.04.001.
28. Surov I.A. Consciousness–Pilot: Quantum Mechanics of Mental Determination. Philosophy and Humanities in the Information Society. 2025;46(3):74-107.
29. Surov I.A. Signal – Qualia – Symbol: Cognitive Hierarchy of Information Codes. Natural Systems of Mind. 2024;4(2):21-38. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.38098/nsom_2024_04_03_02.
30. Sender R., Fuchs S., Milo R. Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body. PLoS Biology. 2016;14(8):1-14. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533.
31. Zhelnin A.I. Bio-Logic: Does the Living Realize Operations of Logical and Computational Type? Vestnik SPbSU. Philosophy and Conflict Studies. 2024;40(2):231–243. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2024.205.
32. Gazya G.V., Gazya N.F, Eskov VV, et al. Unpredictability and Uncertainty Create Real Complexity. Russian Journal of Cybernetics. 2024;5(2):97-102. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.51790/2712-9942-2024-5-2-11.
33. Stepin V.S. Types of scientific rationality and synergetic paradigm. Complixity. Mind. Postnonclassics. 2013;(4)45-59.
34. Beckage B., Gross L. J., Kauffman S. The limits to prediction in ecological systems // Ecosphere. 2011;2(11). DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00211.1.
35. Kravtsov A.Yu. Limits of Predictability. Moscow: CenterCom; 1997. p. 170-200.
36. Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays in 9 volumes. Volume IX. Materials from different years. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. M:Mysl; 1990.
37. Surov I.A., Melnikova E.N. Subjectness of Intelligence: Quantum-Theoretic Analysis and Ethical Perspective. Foundations of Science. 2024;30(3):787–809. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09947-y.
38. Popper K.R. The logic of scientific discovery. M:Progress; 1983.
39. Surov I.A. Asimov’s Laws of Robotics: Conceptual Foundations and Cognitive Fallacies. Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2025;22(4):5-24. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2024-22-4-5-24.
40. Surov I.A. Technopaganism: Digital Idols and Concentration of Control. Tekhnologos. 2025;3:76-90. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2025.3.07.
41. Lukyanov O.V. et al. The Potential of Subjectivity in an Open Self-Developing Systems. Siberian psychological journal. 2026;(100):6-19. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/100/1.
42. Zhelnin A.I. Ontological Analysis of the Biological Type of Information and the Prospects of Its Management. Philosophy of science. 2021;(2)119–132. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15372/PS20210208.
43. Pryakhin V.F. Russian Cosmism and Transhumanism. The Privolzhsky Scientific Journal. 2012;12(8):44-59.
44. Taleb N. The Black Swan: Under the Sign of Unpredictability. Incerto; 2007. 560 p.
45. Joy B. Why the Future doesn’t Need Us. Wired [Internet]. 2000;8.04 [cited 2025 May 18]. Available from: https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/.
