philosophy

III. MATTER AND SPIRIT
 
From time immemorial the life of Homo sapiens has been determined by the two main realities: by the external world of things (matter) and the internal world of his own consciousness (spirit), so the intellectual part of humanity could not help raising at least two questions:

1. Which is primal – matter or spirit;
2. Whether the real world is the same with the one that man perceives?

For thousands of years philosophers has been speculating over these questions coming to different conclusions. Those who consider matter as the basic (primal) substance of the world call themselves materialists and argue with idealists assuming the primacy of spirit. The dispute has been continuing for ages, as it belongs to the kind of disputes where each party is right in its own way reflecting different aspects of the same complex phenomenon.

Materialistic approach is based on the following reasons: 1) everything we deal with consists of material elements; 2) a person’s consciousness is conditioned by the environment he lives in; 3) the more we cognize the world the less space remains for non-material causes.
However, there was at least one idealistic stronghold that remained resistible to materialistic criticism. All materialistic concepts failed to give comprehensive and non-contradictory explanation of how material processes are regulated, what was the mechanism that provides constancy of the laws of nature and reproduction of material things and events.
All practical experience demonstrated that complex things and processes can not occur and recur spontaneously. Bricks and blocks can not form a building without any preliminary project (idea); the life of society (even of a primitive society) is regulated by laws, being the ideal principles formulated by rational beings, etc. So, it was hard to believe that the Universe containing the enormous number of various elements, structures and substructures could maintain the order without any rational (regulating) element, or that the creatures of nature (that may be even more complex than some of artefacts) could emerge and be reproduced spontaneously.  
It should be mentioned that Karl Marx, an adept of materialism, tried to give his own (materialistic) interpretation of the very essence of laws. He defined the law as the essential, stable and regular connections between things and phenomena. Also this definition contains a grain of truth it can not be considered as completely satisfactory, as one should not be a great thinker to notice that ties and bonds between concrete things and systems change millions of times but the laws remain constant. For example, if two stellar objects accidentally collide with each other in the cosmic space all laws of physics will be valid although their relations are neither regular nor essential...
 
The problem of correlation between the material and the ideal (spiritual) acquired a new aspect after the mechanism of functioning of human brain had become to be more or less clear. Whatever they say, it is human reason and man’s rational activity which has always served as the basic pattern for both philosophers-idealists and religious prophets who developed the concept of the supreme reason/God.   
This mechanism was so complex and so deeply hidden that even such staunch materialist as Marx was sure that human consciousness has ideal (non-material) nature and vigorously denied the assumption that our brain may produce thought like our liver produces bile.
But scientific discoveries of 20 c. made the age-old dispute between materialists and idealists if not senseless then at least estranged from the real life. They put in question both the idealistic belief that the entities regulating material processes (ideas) are of non-material origin as well as the materialistic conviction that ideas (knowledge) may exist only as products/attributes of human reason.
Although all aspects of thought processes have not been yet completely revealed, now it is clear that it has electrochemical (material) nature; for example, our memory (the depository of knowledge [ideas]) exists in the form of protein molecules packed in dendrites (branching processes of nerve cells which conduct impulses toward the cell body).
The reproduction of species is provided by DNA double helix encoding the main structural proportions of living organisms.
The most universal laws of physical world are stipulated by the specific structure of vacuum – the basic substance of our Universe containing virtual particles – the “ideal” analogues of the real ones.
These facts leads us to the conclusion that what we usually call “reason”, “idea”, “law”, or “knowledge” is none other but a programme – a material entity reflecting (encoding) a thing’s/system’s main structural proportions and the order of its assembly.
Modern science returns us to Plato’s old theory of forms (ideas), although it requires an up-to-date interpretation and specification.
In general, Being consists of two partially isolated and partially intersected realms: the realm of ideas (programmes) and the realm of physical things (bodies). Ideas are constant while things are mutable and temporary. Everything general and regular is the result of repeating interactions between things (elements) and the respective ideas; everything accidental/single is the result of spontaneous interactions between things. The life of ideas (programmes) submits to the principles of formal logic (the logic of reproduction). The interrelations between things are regulated by the laws of dialectics (the logic of creation).
 
The way the Ideas correlate with physical things was also a subject for long-lasting discussion commenced by two titans of philosophy – Plato and Aristotle. Plato held that the realm of Ideas exists beyond the realm of physical things. These Ideas (Forms) are timeless immovable and are arranged in a hierarchical order. Aristotle argued that Ideas are the attributes of things and are located inside of them. That dispute like the most of philosophic disputes of the past rested mainly on purely speculative assumptions, and as it usually occurred in such cases both parts reflected different aspects of the same truth.
Actually the way the Ideas (programmes) relate with things may be different. At some cases they may be an outward reality while in others an inward one.
The world of ideas described by Plato has remote likeness with vacuum, the realm of serenity where “empty forms” (particles with negative energy) are arranged in a strict order prescribing the order (laws) of physical processes.  The laws regulating the life of biological species prove Aristotle’s version: the DNA that provides the reproduction of living organisms is embedded into their structure. The project (idea) of an artefact (such as a building or a machine) may be stored either into it or outside of it depending on concrete circumstances.
 
Although the objective facts make us to admit that there is nothing non-material in this world, the division of phenomena into ideal (spiritual, bodiless) and material (substantial) being deeply enrooted into philosophy and culture is not quite senseless. As usual the word material is associated with something palpable and ponderable, while the ideas (programmes) regulating the movement of physical bodies, reproduction biological organisms and human behaviour are not apparent to the naked sense organs, so there is no wonder that many philosophers considered them as non-material. Sure, the ideas regulating various material processes have the same (material) origin with physical things, but it should be taken into consideration that unlike things ideas are very subtle structures containing minimal mass, volume and energy. Ideas are the quintessence of things, they are things represented in ultimately concentrated and distilled form. While things consist of elements determining their properties, Ideas consist of symbols – the abstract (light-weight) substitutes of elements being more convenient for storage and communication. Due to such compact and refined structure Ideas are less vulnerable to erosive influence of time (entropy), so their lifetime if not infinite then much longer than the lifetime of things.
In general Plato was right holding that the world of physical things is illusory and only ideas are real; if presume that the ultimate measure of reality is Eternity, then the longer is something’s existence (the more it approaches to Eternity) the more it is real.
   
The main predestination of physical things is to produce work (to change the state of other things/systems). The main predestination of Ideas is to reproduce classes of things and regulate their movement. In other words Ideas limit the power of accident. Randomness is an indispensable element of existence serving as the source of development. But accident is blind: it may both produce new functional structures and destroy necessary ones. Ideas renew necessary elements and proportions and thus provide relative stability of material world and consistency of its main processes.
 
The existence of ideas is possible due to matter’s inherent ability for self-reflection or in other words due to its ability to produce substances that may serve as matrixes retaining information on things and processes. In the World where nothing can resist the destructive work of entropy the only way to prolong (renew) the existence is to live a trace. We may say for sure that something/somebody existed only if it/he has left a trace and the deeper and the more numerous are the traces the more evident is the fact of existence and the more probable is reproduction. Traces pave the way to Eternity...
 
The patriarchs of idealism, Plato and Aristotle, asserted that every thing has its idea (either as an outside or inside reality). But if view ideas as programmes, it should be assumed that not every object is supplied with the respective idea. There are numbers of completely accidental/non-reproducible objects/systems that failed to find the matrix at which they may “record” the essential information concerning their structure and the order of assembly. For example, many stellar objects (asteroids, planets, meteorites) may be classified as accidental (single, unique).
There are things that have lost their ideas and become unique. To this category belong many artefacts of the past (Stonehenge, Egyptian Pyramids, damask steel, waterproof leather [opoika], etc.) which projects have been lost.
Along with accidental there are “dead” ideas. Such class of ideas include programmes that have lost vital connections with material elements due to extinction of mediators which realized these connections, for example: Nazca lines, the Phaistos Disk, non-deciphered ancient scrolls, etc. They may also be the programmes that encode non-vital proportions (such as genes with lethal mutations or perpetuum mobile projects).
Ideas and things (physical) objects have absolutely equal importance: thing/process will not be reproduced if there is no idea (programme) that contains necessary information on its structure and the order of assembly; at the same time an idea will not work if there is no suitable material for assembly or necessary mediators that connect abstract symbols with concrete elements...
 
The fact that both ideas and physical objects have material nature does not cancel the problem of primacy: which appears first – the idea (programme) or the object?
This question belongs to the type of dialectical questions that do not have simple and single-meaning answers (like for example the question about what is primal – a bird or an egg). The solution of the problem nowadays should not be formulated by means of purely speculative philosophic methods (as it was in the past). Trying to give the answer to this “eternal” question we should proceed from scientific concepts (developed by specialists working in the field of cosmology, biology, physiology), which in their turn are not yet undisputable.  
The most probably a new form of organization of matter appears simultaneously with the suitable matrix, on which the essential information concerning the newly appeared form may “recorded”. So, initially Idea may appear as a reflection of a certain physical object, but later it may turn into an autonomous being that can engender new things.
It should be taken into consideration that the division of the existing phenomena into objects and ideas is relative. ======
Many biologists share the hypothesis that new complex protein structures that formed the body of the first living organisms appeared simultaneously with nuclear acids that served as matrixes. But a new species appears as the result of mutations (changes of genetic programme).
An idea (project) of a new artefact (such as a wheel, an airplane, a helicopter, etc.) usually appears as a result of imitation of natural processes (or in other words a reflection of some natural phenomena in the human brain that is an excellent matrix), but new generations of technical devices are the results of improvement of the previous ideal projects. As all material structures, ideas may develop (be replenished with new elements that encode new properties of the respective physical objects).
                      
In general the evolution of Being may be compared with a staged pyramid. Now there are several levels of organization of matter:

• Physical (inorganic/unanimated nature) that is the most old and relatively simple and forms the first stage of the imaginary pyramid;
• Biological (animated nature);
• Social (economic and cultural);

The evolution of matter can rise to the next (higher) stage only if the previous level has already finished its development (get perfect Idea (or in other words constant laws, reproducing its basic proportions).

philosophy

The other eternal problem raising sharp discussions between the members of intellectual community is whether our perception are identical to the real world and whether absolute (complete) knowledge on the objective reality is possible.
The partisans of realistic concept hold that in human knowledge objects are grasped and seen as they really are. They are opposed by idealists who argue that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the appearances of things and that objects are conditioned by their perceptibility. The latter view is supported by the evident fact that a reflection of an object is conditioned not only by its own properties, but also by the properties of the substance that reflects it. To add it all our sense organs (as well as special devices) are unable to grasp simultaneously all aspects (characteristics) of complex structures or such objects as subatomic particles.
The realists in their turn argued that our sense organs give us true and undistorted images of things; they proceeded from the axiom that practice is the main criterion of truth, so if the images produced by our sense organs enable us to operate and change things, so they are identical to objective reality. None-the-less, it is practice that put realistic concept in question – to widen the circle of objects and processes being under our control we should use special devices (microscopes, telescopes, sensors, etc.), that reflect objective reality in their own way. This fact raises the problem: what image is true – that produced directly by our sense organs or that received with the help of special devices? Two different images can not be both true copies of the same object. Relativity theory which proved that perception of an object/event depends on the inertial frame of reference also undermined positions of realistic concept.
It should be mentioned that today the main epistemological problems require quite new approach. The advance of science made in 20c., demonstrated insufficiency of existing epistemological concepts: both those treating sceptically the ability of human reason to solve the riddles of existence and those believing that we perceive external objects as they really are.
To avoid confusion the very essence of cognitive process should be cleared up. There is a widely spread opinion that true knowledge that enables us to change the surrounding world implies equivalence between the ideal image (containing in our mind) and the reflected object. On these grounds idealists held that the world will always remain a mystery for human beings as our perceptions are not identical to real objects, while realists argued that we perceive the external objects as they really are because we are able to operate (produce, reproduce and modify) them. But actually production, reproduction and modification of things and processes do not require their complete, exact and undistorted reflection. For example living organisms are reproduced on the basis of DNA that regulates their internal processes, although the DNA is by no means a true copy of a living creature, but it contains information on its main structural proportions and the order of its assembly. Modification of species is also the result of modification of DNA. The same situation is with subatomic particles: we do not percept them, we can not even imagine them, but scientists organise reaction between them as they know their main quantitative characteristics (proportions). Hence to cognise something is to determine its main proportions and the order of its assembly and to present them in the form of symbols that have complementary aspects with the elements of reflected structure (or with mediator) – the rest will be arranged by itself. Sure, our sense organs do not give us true images of things, but these images contain sufficient information for grasping their ideas and qualities (functional characteristics) in the way that makes possible their reproduction and modification. Our nervous system is perfectly adapted for catching likeness and difference between various objects, retrace casual relationships (i.e. establish the order of assembly) and associating perceptions with respective symbols arranged in the order which repeats the order of things/events in objective reality.
In general, there are three main views concerning the nature and the prospects of knowledge process; each of them contains both true and wrong statements, but if extract and combine the elements of truth, there will be quite a new concept.
The first view that should be considered belongs to Kantianism (and shared by a number of modern thinkers). It reads that man can have knowledge only of a finite world of appearances and that wherever his reason attempts to go beyond this sphere and grapple with the infinite or with ultimate reality, it becomes entangled in insoluble contradictions. But more probably, everything is vice versa: it is the realm of appearances that will always remain illusive for us, in this sense every thing will be a “thing in itself” which real image will never appear to us as it will always be distorted by specific properties of our sense organs. This should not be the reason for pessimism, as to cognise a thing is not to reflect perfectly its form, but to grasp its idea (the main proportions and the order of assembly). Although things’ appearances slip off, we may penetrate into their souls and thus pave the way to the ultimate reality.
So, we have to accept the opinion suggested by dialectical materialism (Marxism) that the World is quite cognizable. But the other thesis of this epistemological concept is dubious. It reads that truth may be only relative, absolute truth (complete knowledge of a subject) is unreal, so knowledge process is infinite, its final objective will never be achieved. Such statement raises the problem of motivation for cognizing the World, as that which is endless inevitably turns into senseless. Sure, knowledge helps to make people’s life better, but a human being is mortal and to improve that which is mortal is if not completely useless, than can not be considered as the ultimate aim of knowledge process. Moreover the conditions under which life is possible are not eternal: the Universe is inflating and nobody could say for sure what results it will lead to. We may suppose that the further progress of knowledge will make humanity able to maintain necessary conditions for infinite period of time, but experience shows that discovering new laws of nature not only widens our possibilities, but also sets limits on them (for example the law of conservation of energy leads to conclusion concerning impossibility to construct perpetuum mobile). There is no doubt that man’s power over nature may be immense, but there are no unshakeable reasons that it may be unlimited.
To resolve this contradiction we should take into consideration the view pertaining to Hegelianism: G. Hegel viewed the evolution of Being as the process of self-cognition of Absolute Spirit. Hegel the main objective of cognition is comprehension of Absolute Idea (reflection of Absolute Spirit) and this Idea has already been cognized (by him). Of course, Hegel’s philosophy is by no means the crown of knowledge process, but it contains very fruitful thought that absolute knowledge (complete equality between the quantity of information containing in an object and in its reflection containing in man’s mind) may exist only as the knowledge about the most general and fundamental principles of existence that constantly show from behind single instances.
Although randomness is an attribute of existence there is no need to get complete knowledge about it, as it plays an interim role serving as the source of evolution that has finally led to emergence of Homo sapiens and constantly stimulates him to cognize the surrounding world by changing conditions of his life and making him curious. But the initial and the final state of Matter is the state under which the single and the general, the beginning and the end, the finite and the infinite are amalgamated into a single unity. To have absolute knowledge is to get complete information on this primordial state, as the whole variety of consequent events and their results has come from it. To find the formula of this Absolute the humanity should accumulate information on everything existing in the world as more as possible to extract the basic proportions of the Universe that make it able to evolve.
In the reality where energy has fluid nature immortality may exist only as perpetual reproduction of a certain object/class of objects on the basis of programme (pattern). A thing/system dies when it fails (due to this or that cause) to reproduce itself. So, it would be quite reasonable to assume that eternal existence of the Universe is none other than perpetual resurrection (oscillation): it begins with the simplest form (singularity) where only basic principles of existence were present, after that it evolves, and finally returns to the initial state. This cycle is infinite.
The main objectives of knowledge process are determined both by the nature of objective reality and of human mind. Every level of organization of matter has its own matrix which provides reproduction of its basic elements and properties, but contains no information on other levels. Human brain is able to reflect all existing laws (ideas) and deduce the most universal principles of organization, so the process of cognition plays dual role: it provides means for improving the life of Homo sapiens (that is the only creature able to reduce entropy of the World) and accumulates information necessary to extract the grains of absolute knowledge - the basic proportions of material world and the order of its assembly, for it could restore its integrity and then be scattered into myriads of fractions and start assembling and reassembling them to weave from the remnants of a supernovae a thinking creature whose striving for immortality is the pledge for immortality of Being.

philosophy

II. DIALECTICS

The quintessence of classic philosophy is dialectics. This cognitive method (considering things in their changes, interrelations and interconnections) is almost as ancient as philosophy itself. The father of dialectics was Greek philosopher Heraclitus, which was the first thinker who noticed the existence of opposites, the hidden connections between all things and relative nature of perception. Dialectical method was actively used and developed by such prominent ancient thinkers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
German classic philosophy raised dialectics to the new level. E. Kant created a special transcendental (dialectical) logic that operated with antinomies and viewed an idea/phenomenon as something that has its own history of development. The works of G. Hegel became the acme of dialectical thought. This great philosopher elaborated the most fundamental and comprehensive system of dialectical laws and categories rested on three basic principles – unity and struggle of opposites, transition from quantitative changes into qualitative and negation of negation viewed as the general laws of development. K. Marx in his turn provided materialistic interpretation of Hegel’s dialectical concept and enriched it with a number of fresh ideas.
But in the modern society dialectics exists as a “dead” knowledge. Post-classic philosophy views it as an anachronism, while devoted Hegelians and Marxists have turned dialectical method into a set of dogmatic principles broking tight connections between the method and living practice.
Sure, the theoretical principles, formulated more than 150 years ago can not remain immutable, but so valuable intellectual heritage must not simply fall into oblivion. All the more, dialectical frame of mind (when things are viewed in their changes, interrelations and interconnections) was demonstrated not only by philosophers, but by the writers of realistic school (who depicted their personages as developing characters acting within a concrete social environment), by Ch. Darwin (who recognized that biological species are not eternal and immutable, but had evolved from extinct ancestors and underwent perpetual changes as a result of interrelations with natural surroundings), as well as by A. Einstein, who refused the idea of absolute space and time and proved their dependency on the relative motion of observers, by Niels Bohr, who enunciated the principle of complementarity and others.
It is curious, but the most of scientists and men of letters who actually used dialectical approach in their creative activity showed very little interest in Hegel’s and Marxist philosophy being the summit of dialectical thought. Presumably, such neglecting attitude was caused by the fact that the central statement of the abovementioned dialectical concepts was hardly applicable to special systems. This statement (formulated by Hegel and supported by Marx, as it perfectly suited his own idea of class struggle) reads that all things contain contradictory sides or aspects (thesis and antithesis) whose tension or conflict is the driving force of change and eventually transforms and dissolves them. But the latest scientific data show that the development of physical, biological or socio-economic systems does not follow this logic. Stars and galaxies (whose cores are the wombs for new chemical elements) are the products of accidental processes (fluctuations) in massive gas clouds; the inception of evolution of species is mutations (sudden changes in genetically controlled features); the source of social progress is not class struggle (that exists both in developing and in stagnating/degrading societies), but unpredictable scientific and technical inventions (providing society with new means of production) as well as accidental deviations from regular course of events (the result of wars, crises, disasters) that urge individuals to search for new forms of economical and social organisation.
Nowadays an unengaged researcher who deals with developing (self-organizing) systems of any type will prove that all evolutionary changes are initiated by accidental events.
The nature of the occasional has always been a subject of sharp discussions. In general, there are two main approaches towards the problem: deterministic and indeterministic. Deterministic concept formulated by Laplace (and shared by A. Einstein and some other physicists and philosophers) states that an intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
The other (indeterministic) opinion (pertaining to quantum mechanics and the most of post-classic philosophic concepts) is based on the conviction that along with periodical and strictly predetermined events there are those regulated by probability laws, so the occasional is something that may occur or may not occur. The latter view has at least one vulnerable point: the main reason for qualifying an event as not strictly predetermined is the impossibility to forecast it. This argument is not quite indisputable: numbers of events being formerly unpredictable later become actually (or theoretically) predictable (such as changes of weather or Brown movement).
However today the problem can not be finally resolved by pure abstract speculations – both opinions have weighty reasons and only new empirical facts can put an end to this age-old dispute. What can be said for sure is that the main difference between occasional and regular events is the nature of their causes. In distinct from regular (predictable) events which have permanent causes (material objects with constant parameters), the causes of occasional events are variable – they usually “dissolve” in the environment (or change their parameters) just after they have caused the effect, so it is impossible to retrace (and hence predict) them.
In general there are three types of movement:
- completely predictable movement caused only by constant factors (for example, the rotation of planets);
- completely unpredictable chaotic movement caused only by variable factors (movement of atoms and molecules of gas,);
- partially predictable movement determined both by constant and by variable factors and described in the terms of probability theory pertaining to the most of open/self-organising systems.
That which is called probability is correlation between constant/overt and variable/covert causes. Constant causes (factors) serve as a frame which outlines the field of action of variable factors; the narrower and the more rigid is the frame the more probable/predictable is the event, and vice versa.
The most usual source of occasional events is broken regularity – i.e.: a thing/system that has abruptly lost its integrity/disappeared. The explosion of a supernova may serve as a vivid model demonstrating the process of transformation of the regular into the occasional and vice versa. The explosion of a concrete star can not be qualified as a regular event as it occurs only once, but at the same it is a necessary (inevitable) event as a star which perpetually looses mass and energy can not maintain equilibrium for an unlimited period of time. The explosion trigs a chain of chaotic (occasional) interactions between atoms and subatomic particles that leads to emergence of new chemical elements constituting material for new stellar objects. The planetary system that appears as a result of an enormous number of irregular interactions consequently turns into a regularly moving structure. So, regularity may be defined as a settled fortuity, the fortuity that acquired systematic character by integrating/evolving into a system.
Presumably, all occasional events in the Universe are the remote consequences of the Big Bang that plunged matter into chaos and led to relatively unequal distribution of matter in space which curved trajectories of things in different ways, desynchronized events and processes and hence made physical bodies sporadically deviate from their regular courses, clash with each other and produce new forms.
If a newly appeared form is viable and if it is able to find vacant space (niche), it becomes a part of the system and a factor that determines its further development. If the amount of space and energy necessary for coexistence of both old and new elements exceeds the available reserves, the system undergoes rapid and radical transformations. In terms of dialectics quantitative changes turn into qualitative.
The unpopularity of dialectics among modern scientists led to independent rediscovering of this dialectical law in 20 century – various concepts of self-organization (such as the theory of catastrophes or synergetic) described this dialectical process in their own way, using for example the term “bifurcation” instead of “qualitative leap”.)
It should be marked that the later concepts of development (self-organization) demonstrate better understanding of the role of occasion as an important source of evolutionary changes and are based on experimental data (in contrast with classic dialectical concepts based mainly on abstract speculations). However, modern theories of self-organization have their own drawbacks.
1) These latest theories of self-organization were developed mainly by the specialists dealing with relatively simple systems and processes, such as chemical reactions or behaviour of micro objects – the patterns that are typical for the abovementioned structures are not always applicable to more complex biological and social systems.
2) While classic dialectical theories underestimate the role of accidental events (viewing it as something secondary and unimportant), modern theories overestimate the creative role of chaos and the influence of weak fluctuations on a system’s behaviour at the moment of bifurcation (qualitative leap). According to modern concepts of self-organization there are several alternatives a developing system may choose and its final choice may depend on small fluctuations that appear near the point of bifurcation; at this moment a system becomes extremely flexible and may be easily “turned” in this or that direction even by weak forces.
There is no doubt that when the balance is broken a system becomes very sensitive to external influences and even weak fluctuations may initiate big changes, but if observe the behaviour of open systems of various types more carefully, it will be evident: a system “submits” only to that weak forces which vector corresponds with the vector of a dominating tendency.
Those who study self-organizing systems usually mix two different terms: tendencies and variants. As usual that which we usually view as equally possible alternatives are tendencies with approximately equal sets of characteristics being accessible for observation and measuring. But along with measurable parameters they contain numbers of hidden properties which reveal themselves only in at the very moment of qualitative leap, when interactions between system’s blocks and elements become extremely intensive, so it is very difficult to estimate their real capacities beforehand. And the more complex is a system and the higher is the dynamic of its inner processes the less information is accessible. This fact creates an illusion that accidental (small) factors may determine the line of changes while actually they only reveal or activate the hidden potentialities of a certain tendency. As usual the choice a system makes at the moment of qualitative leap (bifurcation) is prepared and strictly predetermined by the previous period of quantitative (latent) changes that gradually alter the balance of forces within the system.
Small fluctuation and deviations may play important role only when a system is of micro size (like a chain of atoms or molecules) or if the competing tendencies are approximately equal, so a small portion of mass and energy added to this or that tendency may tilt the balance to its advantage. But the more massive and complex is a system the more weighty and numerous factors are necessary to determine the line of its further development. (World War I was triggered by the shot of Gavrilo Princip, but only naive persons may believe that at the moment when Europe was at the breach of the war somebody’s constructive personal initiative could persuade political leaders to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. That deadly clash was prepared by rapid economic expansion of leading European nations and may be averted only by a miracle, which would create additional markets, sources of energy and raw materials without which further economic development of belligerent states was impossible.)
The evolution of such colossal object as a star (its subsequent development on the main sequence) also can hardly be dependent on accidental deviations, but strictly predetermined by its mass.
All practical experience prompts that the cause(s) and the effect(s) should be always equivalent. The only difference pertaining to self-organizing (developing) systems is that the line of its further development is prepared and determined by a chain of minor causes which have been gradually accumulated during a certain period of time and remain inactive until the last factor (trigger) put them in motion acting as a last straw, adding the last portion of energy that breaks the shaky balance. This peculiarity creates the illusion that big changes may be caused by small factors