A meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation: the recursive transit of complexity through transitional meta-levels

A meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation: the recursive transit of complexity through transitional meta-levels | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation: the recursive transit of complexity through transitional meta-levels Vladimir Lemeshchenko This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This interdisciplinary study constructs a bridge between the philosophy of science, theoretical biology, complex systems theory, and cosmology. It proposes a meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation within the structures of the material world. Complexity in the universe emerges through recursive acts of cooperation among autonomous elements, forming temporary wholes with emergent properties, which in turn become elements for the next cycle of cooperation. The article describes a fundamental pattern of the emergence of complexity via the cooperation of autonomous elements, resulting in temporary functional wholes possessing emergent properties. The meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis inherits and develops ideas from Bertalanffy's systems theory, Haken's synergetics, and Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures. The emergence of complexity in the material world represents a universal ontological principle manifesting across all levels of material organization—from molecular interactions and cellular processes to social structures and cosmological systems. The idea of hierarchical synthesis offers a new conceptual language for describing the dynamic hierarchy of complex systems and overcoming the traditional divide between the natural sciences and humanities. Developmental Biology Evolutionary Biology Animal Science General Cell Biology & Physiology Ecological Modeling philosophy of science meta-theory interdisciplinarity hierarchical synthesis transient meta-level of structural organization fractal paradigm of cooperation complex systems INTRODUCTION Modern philosophy of science is experiencing a methodological crisis due to the exhaustion of the explanatory potential of the reductionist paradigm. Despite the outstanding achievements of the analytical approach in particle physics and molecular biology, its epistemological limitations become increasingly evident when studying complex biological, ecological, and social systems (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984 ). Classical reductionism demonstrates a fundamental inability to adequately describe emergent properties and the hierarchical organization of living systems, where the whole possesses qualities not derivable from its constituent parts (Kauffman, 1993 ). The growing need for integrative approaches reflects a fundamental shift in the scientific paradigm—a transition from analyzing isolated elements to a holistic understanding of complex systems (Capra, 2003 ). This methodological turn has deep historical roots, traceable from Aristotelian natural philosophy with his doctrine of four causes, through the natural-philosophical explorations of the Romantics and Goethe, to 20th-century systems concepts and modern complexity theories (Merkulov, 1999 ). In response to these challenges, a new direction of scientific thought is emerging, aimed at overcoming the traditional divide between the natural sciences and humanities. It inherits and develops ideas from Bertalanffy's systems theory (the idea of emergence, the system's action exceeding the mechanistic sum of its parts), Haken's synergetics (synergetics and self-organization of open systems), and Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures (stable non-equilibrium structures and non-equilibrium as the basis of order), offering an integral approach to understanding the organization of complexity in nature (Bertalanffy, 1968 ; Haken, 1983 ; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984 ). It should be noted that these meta-ideas, based primarily on specific scientific fields (biology and philosophy, physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics respectively), laid the foundation for the development of integrative approaches in advancing knowledge about the world. Currently, the ideas of creating meta-theories are also generating interest among scientists, as evidenced by the preprint by Marianne Bauer et al. ( 2025 ). The authors note that with the advancement of high-dimensional biological datasets, two main theoretical approaches have emerged. The first is aimed at finding an effective low-dimensional description of systems through data compression or the identification of latent structures. The second approach, conversely, leverages high dimensionality itself by analyzing statistical patterns to model states and dynamics. Research prospects include quantifying dimensionality, studying the factors that shape subspaces, and drawing parallels between biological and artificial systems. The main thesis of this work is that universal principles and mechanisms of self-organization manifest at all levels of material organization—from molecular interactions and cellular processes to social structures, ecological systems, and even higher levels of material organization. Developing a unified conceptual language for describing the dynamic hierarchy of complex systems opens prospects for creating a general theory of complexity capable of overcoming the centuries-old dichotomy between mechanistic and holistic worldviews (Wilson, 1998 ). RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND TASKS Research Objective: To develop a meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fundamental pattern in the formation of complex systems at various levels of material organization. Research Tasks: 1. Conduct an interdisciplinary analysis of manifestations of hierarchical self-organization in physical, biological, and social systems. 2. Identify and systematize criteria for identifying transient meta-levels of structural organization. 3. Develop a theoretical model of hierarchical synthesis. 4. Investigate emergent properties and critical transition points between organizational levels. 5. Analyze methodological problems of verifying hierarchical synthesis. 6. Determine practical applications and ethical implications of the proposed concept. 7. Formulate promising directions for further research within the developed theoretical paradigm. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study is based on a comprehensive methodological strategy integrating interdisciplinary analysis, theoretical modeling, and comparative approaches. The foundation of the study comprised the following methods: 1. Interdisciplinary synthesis was implemented through comparative analysis of concepts from various fields of knowledge (systems theory, synergetics, developmental biology, sociology) using a systems approach (Bertalanffy, 1968). The application of general scientific research methods included analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction (Kedrov, 1972). 2. Theoretical modeling was carried out through the development of conceptual schemes (models of transient meta-level, hierarchical synthesis) using methods of idealization and formalization. The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete allowed for formulating criteria for identifying transient meta-levels ( Lektorsky, 1980 ; Ilyenkov, 1997). 3. Comparative analysis was applied using the historical-genetic method to identify analogies in self-organization processes at different levels of reality. The dialectical method facilitated the analysis of transitional states and mechanisms of element integration into systemic wholes (Merkulov, 1999; Kopnin, 1973). 4. Heuristic procedures included the method of conceptual extrapolation based on principles of theoretical biology and philosophy of science (Hesse, 1966). The systems approach ensured the construction of a unified conceptual space for analyzing complex systems (Sadovsky, 1974). 5. Critical-reflexive analysis used Bohr's principle of complementarity (Bohr, 1958) and methods of methodological reflection to assess the limits of applicability of the proposed model. The hermeneutic approach allowed for interpreting the obtained results in the context of modern science (Gadamer, 2004). Ethical Statement This theoretical research article, entitled "Towards a Meta-Theory of Hierarchical Synthesis: A Fundamental Pattern in the Formation of Complex Systems," does not involve direct empirical experimentation with human participants or animals. The study is a conceptual and theoretical inquiry based on the interdisciplinary analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge and published literature. Consequently: 1. Human Subjects: No human subjects were recruited, interviewed, observed, or involved in any primary data collection. The analysis of social systems is conducted at a theoretical level, utilizing existing sociological and philosophical concepts. Therefore, no approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee concerning human subjects research was required or obtained. 2. Animal Subjects: No animals were used in any experimental capacity for this research. The discussion of biological systems is based on established principles from theoretical biology and systems theory drawn from the scientific literature. Therefore, no approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethical review for animal experimentation was required or obtained. 3. Research Integrity: All intellectual material from other authors used in the development of the theoretical model has been, or will be, appropriately cited in accordance with academic standards to avoid plagiarism. The research methodology, as described, relies on critical analysis and synthesis of published ideas, not on the generation of new empirical data from living beings. The ethical considerations of this work lie not in its methods of data acquisition, but in the analysis of the ethical implications of the proposed concept itself, which is explicitly addressed as Research Task 6 ("Determine practical applications and ethical implications of the proposed concept"). This task involves a reflexive and critical examination of the potential consequences of applying a theory of hierarchical synthesis to complex social and socio-technical systems. RESULTS We have established that the increasing complexity of the material world's structure occurs through the manifestation of a universal meta-process, which we propose to term « Hierarchical synthesis ». Hierarchical synthesis is a universal law of the universe, describing the process of generating complexity through a recurring cycle: stable level of organization (N) → mandatory phase of transient meta-level (cooperation and restructuring) → emergence of a new stable level (N+1) with emergent properties, which in turn becomes the basis for initiating the next cycle of hierarchical synthesis. The transient meta-level is not merely "embedded" in hierarchical synthesis—it is its engine and necessary phase. Without this transient, meta-stable phase of reorganization, a leap to the next level of complexity is impossible. The universal structure of the transient meta-level represents a dynamic state that inevitably arises between two stable levels of organization as a mechanism for qualitative transition. It is triggered by an internal limit or external challenge that cannot be resolved within the existing system. In response, the system enters a phase of destabilization, where old rigid connections disintegrate, and elements, losing part of their autonomy, engage in multiple trial, unstable cooperations. This is a period of maximum plasticity and internal conflict, where old and new patterns compete. From this chaos, through processes of competition and selection, one dominant configuration gradually channels and strengthens—the nascent order parameter of the future whole. It begins to subordinate the behavior of elements, reducing entropy and variability, marking the integration phase. The process concludes with the consolidation of a new structure, which, gaining stability, exits the transient state, demonstrating fundamentally new, emergent properties. Thus, the transient meta-level performs the function of a universal and necessary "reorganization protocol"—the narrow gate through which any system must pass to leap to the next level of complexity, transforming crisis into a new whole. Fractal nature of hierarchical synthesis: conceptual grounding The universal algorithm of hierarchical synthesis, manifesting at all levels of material organization, demonstrates fundamental properties of fractal structures. A fractal is a geometric figure, mathematical model, or natural object (process) characterized by self-similarity—the property where a part of the structure repeats the whole at a reduced scale. This means that the same organizational pattern is observable when changing the scale of the system. Classic mathematical examples include the Koch curve, Sierpinski triangle, and Mandelbrot set. In nature, fractal principles underlie the structure of trees (branching), circulatory and respiratory systems (optimization of resource delivery), coastlines, and clouds. The most important quantitative characteristic of a fractal is its fractal dimension (Hausdorff dimension), which can be expressed as a non-integer (fractional) number. Unlike Euclidean objects (line — 1D, plane — 2D, cube — 3D), fractal dimension reflects the degree of complexity, the "filledness" of space by the structure. For example, the Koch curve has a dimension of approximately 1.26, indicating greater complexity than a smooth line but less than a plane. The principle of hierarchical synthesis is fractal in essence: 1. Process Self-Similarity. The basic sequence "level N → transient meta-level (cooperation) → level N+1 with emergent properties" recursively repeats at qualitatively different scales—from molecular interactions to cosmogonic processes. 2. Scale Invariance. Universal transition criteria (destabilization, pattern competition, integration around an order parameter, consolidation) remain invariant when transitioning between levels, corresponding to a fractal pattern. 3. Recursive Generation of Complexity. The new stable level (N+1) itself becomes an element for the next act of cooperation, similar to how a fractal structure unfolds through infinite application of a simple rule. Thus, the entire observable hierarchy of the Universe is the result of recursive application of this single fractal algorithm, obeying the regularities of hierarchical synthesis. Philosophical foundations of hierarchical synthesis Hierarchical synthesis represents a fundamental mode of existence for complex systems, manifesting at all levels of material organization. Unlike static ontological models, this principle emphasizes the procedural nature of existence, where stability arises as a dynamic equilibrium between integration and disintegration processes (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). The relationship between part and whole in such systems is characterized by dialectical unity: elements retain relative autonomy while simultaneously participating in the formation of new wholes with emergent properties (Bertalanffy, 1968). Temporality and processuality act as key ontological categories in the context of this principle. Each level of organization exists as a temporary stabilization in a continuous flow of transformations, where periods of relative stability alternate with phases of bifurcational transitions (Haken, 1983). This processual understanding of being finds reflection in the concept of "becoming" as opposed to static "being," fundamentally distinguishing the proposed approach from the substantial ontology of classical philosophy (Whitehead, 1978). Cognitive strategies for the study of hierarchical synthesis require the development of new methodological approaches overcoming the limitations of traditional reductionism. A synthesis of analytical methods aimed at identifying elementary components and holistic approaches that account for emergent properties of whole systems is necessary (Kauffman, 1993). This implies the development of a special categorical apparatus capable of adequately describing self-organization processes at different levels of complexity. The problem of reduction and emergence acquires particular significance in the context of this principle. If classical reductionism sought to reduce the properties of the whole to the characteristics of its constituent elements, the principle of hierarchical self-organization acknowledges the fundamental irreducibility of emergent properties arising at each new level of integration (Clayton & Davies, 2006). This raises the question of the need to develop a non-reductionist methodology capable of accounting for both continuity and qualitative uniqueness of different organizational levels. Historical prerequisites of hierarchical synthesis can be traced in various philosophical traditions. Aristotelian concepts of wholeness, with his doctrine of four causes and the idea of the irreducibility of the whole to the sum of its parts, represent one of the first attempts at comprehending hierarchical organization (Aristotle, 2019). Leibnizian monads and the principle of pre-established harmony, despite their metaphysical nature, contain an important proposition about the coordination of elements within a whole (Leibniz, 2014). A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy with its emphasis on eventfulness and interconnectedness of all elements of reality offers an ontological foundation for understanding the dynamic nature of hierarchical self-organization (Whitehead, 1967). Russian cosmism, particularly V.I. Vernadsky's ideas about the biosphere and noosphere, develops the notion of interconnection between different organizational levels and the co-evolution of natural and social systems (Vernadsky, 1997). Manifestations of hierarchical synthesis at the atomic-molecular level Hierarchical synthesis finds expression already at the level of elementary particles, atoms, and molecules, where self-organization manifests as a fundamental property of matter. The formation of atomic nuclei from nucleons and electron shells demonstrates the emergence of qualitatively new properties not reducible to the characteristics of their constituent elementary particles (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). The part-whole relationship in chemical systems is particularly evident in the formation of chemical compounds, where molecules acquire properties absent in individual atoms, indicating genuine emergence (Bunge, 2003). Temporality and processuality of molecular complexes reflect the dynamic nature of chemical bonds and molecular conformations. Modern research shows that many molecular systems exist as dynamic ensembles, constantly rearranging between various conformational states (Lehn, 1995). This processuality is especially pronounced in biological macromolecules, where functional activity is directly linked to the ability for reversible structural rearrangements (Alberts et al., 2014). Cognitive strategies in chemistry and molecular physicsrequire a combination of quantum-mechanical and statistical approaches. On one hand, quantum mechanics allows describing the behavior of individual particles; on the other, statistical physics is necessary for understanding collective properties of molecular ensembles (Atkins & Friedman, 2010). This methodological duality reflects the fundamental impossibility of completely reducing properties of complex molecular systems to those of their individual components. The problem of reduction and emergence in chemical systems acquires particular acuteness when considering the transition from atoms to molecules. Although chemical properties can formally be derived from quantum-mechanical principles, the practical impossibility of such derivation for complex systems points to the ontological status of emergent properties (Hendry, 2022). The principle of hierarchical self-organization finds convincing confirmation in the theory of chemical evolution, which traces the transition from simple molecules to complex biopolymers through successive stages of self-organization (De Duve, 2005). Self-organization of molecules into supramolecular complexes represents a classic example of the universal principle's manifestation. The formation of lipid bilayers, molecular crystals, and supramolecular ensembles demonstrates molecules' ability for spontaneous formation of ordered structures (Whitesides & Grzybowski, 2002). These processes are characterized by cooperativity of interactions, where the formation of initial structures facilitates subsequent self-organization. Cooperative effects in chemical reactions, such as autocatalytic cycles and oscillatory reactions, provide convincing experimental confirmations of the hierarchical self-organization principle. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction and other oscillatory systems demonstrate the emergence of temporal and spatial structures in homogeneous chemical media (Epstein & Pojman, 1998). Hierarchical synthesis in biological systems At the molecular level, the principle of hierarchical self-organization manifests in cooperative interactions within biochemical networks, where enzymatic complexes function as coordinated systems. Metabolomics research demonstrates that cellular metabolism represents not merely a set of separate reactions but an integrated network with emergent properties (Alberts et al., 2014). Symbiogenesis, extensively studied by Lynn Margulis, serves as a classic example of forming a new organizational level through the integration of previously independent organisms (Margulis, 1993). The cell represents the result of multi-level integration, where various organelles and molecular complexes function as a coordinated system. Modern cell biology data show that the eukaryotic cell arose through a series of symbiogenetic events, each creating a new level of functional wholeness (Lane, 2015). Molecular machines, such as ribosomes and proteasomes, demonstrate properties of transient functional wholes arising during the execution of specific tasks (Misteli, 2020). Ontogenesis can be viewed as a sequence of hierarchical self-organization phases, where each developmental stage is characterized by the formation of temporary functional wholes. Embryonic organizers, described by Spemann, act as self-organization centers coordinating the development of complex structures (Gilbert, 2016). Critical periods of development represent bifurcation points when the system transitions to a new organizational level. Immunological research reveals complex tolerance mechanisms allowing two genetically different organisms to function as a single system (Moffett & Colucci, 2014). The placental barrier functions not merely as a filter but as an active interface for inter-organism communication. The immune system demonstrates properties of a distributed para-organismal structure, where individual cells and molecules respond coordinately to external influences (Medzhitov, 2021). The transient para-organismal level of structural organization as a particular manifestation of the transient meta-level in biology is described in the preprint by Lemeshchenko V.V. (2025). An example of such a para-organismal structure is the "mother-placenta-fetus" system, which represents a classic example of hierarchical self-organization, where two genetically different organisms form a temporary functional whole (Burton & Fowden, 2015). The placenta functions as a unique interface, providing not only substance exchange but also complex immunological and endocrine communication (Turco et al., 2018). Emergent properties of this system include the formation of immune tolerance, synchronization of physiological processes, and coordinated fetal growth (Mor et al., 2010). In oviparous amniotes (reptiles, birds), the egg represents an isolated para-organismal system where the embryo develops in an autonomous environment provided by yolk reserves and protected by specialized membranes of dual origin—both from the embryo itself and the mother (Packard & Seymour, 1997). This system also exhibits properties of a transient para-organismal level of structural organization: temporary wholeness (incubation period), functional specialization of membranes, and emergent properties of the developing system (Deeming, 2004). Critical points in both cases are transition moments: implantation and birth in placental species; the beginning and end of incubation in oviparous species. These transitions are characterized by qualitative changes in the organization of the biological system (Cross et al., 2003). Such a manifestation of the transient meta-level in the series of amniotes is proposed by Lemeshchenko V.V. (2025) to be considered «a transient para-organismal level», located between the organism and population levels. Social insects, such as ants and bees, form superorganisms where individual individuals function as elements of a single system. Sociobiology research shows that such systems possess emergent properties not reducible to the behavior of individual individuals (Wilson, 2012). Cooperative behavior and division of labor ensure the functional wholeness of the colony as a single organism. Ecosystems represent complex hierarchies of self-organizing systems where various species form stable cooperative networks. Modern ecology views ecosystems as dynamic wholes possessing self-regulation properties (Levin, 1998). Vernadsky's biosphere concept finds new understanding through the prism of hierarchical synthesis, where the biosphere appears as a global self-organizing system (Vernadsky, 1991). Hierarchical synthesis in social and cultural systems Social institutions (family, state, economic systems) demonstrate all characteristics of hierarchical self-organization. The family as the elementary unit of society represents a transient system where individuals form a functional whole with emergent properties not reducible to the qualities of individual members (Giddens, 1984). State institutions arise as a result of cooperation among numerous individuals, creating new organizational levels with their own normative structure and regulatory mechanisms (North, 2005). Economic systems, as demonstrated by North and supported by Hayek, are formed through the self-organization of economic agents, generating macroeconomic regularities that cannot be derived from individual behavior (Hayek, 1945). Educational systems and scientific communities represent a special class of para-organismal structures. Academic communities, according to Kuhn, function as whole systems developing paradigmatic foundations for scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 1962). Educational institutions create temporary cooperative "teacher-student" systems where qualitatively new knowledge arises, not reducible to the simple sum of transmitted information (Vygotsky, 1978). Consciousness can be viewed as an emergent property arising in the "brain-culture" system. Modern cognitive science research shows that consciousness results from the integration of neural networks and cultural patterns (Clark, 2008). Language functions as a para-organismal system existing in the space between individuals and ensuring coordination of collective activity (Deacon, 1997). Art and science as products of hierarchical self-organization demonstrate culture's ability to generate new meaning systems. Artistic works and scientific theories exist as autonomous meaning universes living their own lives in cultural space (Lotman, 1990). These systems possess the property of temporality—they arise, reach peak influence, and transform, yielding to new cultural forms. Vernadsky's noosphere concept acquires new resonance in the context of technological evolution. The technosphere represents a global para-organismal system where technological artifacts form a whole with its own developmental dynamics (Vernadsky, 1998). Digital technologies create fundamentally new forms of transient meta-level—from virtual communities to distributed computing systems. Artificial intelligence in the context of the universal principle can be considered a new form of self-organization. Modern AI systems demonstrate emergent properties not programmed by their creators (Mnih et al., 2015). The interaction of human and artificial intelligence generates hybrid cognitive systems with qualitatively new capabilities. Human as a meta-transient para-organismal system: interdisciplinary perspectives The concept of the transient para-organismal level finds its most complete expression in understanding humans as complex hierarchical systems unifying biological organisms, mental processes, and social interactions into a dynamic functional whole. Modern research demonstrates that at the biological level, humans exist as a symbiotic "macroorganism-microbiome" system where microbial communities perform key metabolic and regulatory functions, forming a single ecological unit (Gilbert, Sapp & Tauber, 2012; Sender, Fuchs & Milo, 2016). Human mental organization represents an emergent property of the integration of cognitive, affective, and motivational processes, arising on the basis of neurophysiological structures but not reducible to them (Thompson, 2007). A unique characteristic of humans as a transient meta-level is the ability to generate autonomous para-organismal systems overcoming spatiotemporal limitations of the biological substrate. Biological transcendence is accomplished through reproduction, where offspring inherit and transform genetic information, creating new independent organisms (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). Intellectual transcendence manifests in creating scientific theories, artistic works, and technological artifacts that acquire independent existence in cultural space, living their own lives independently of the creator (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Lotman, 1990). Social transcendence is realized through educating students and followers who continue and develop ideas and practices beyond the individual existence of their creator (Mead, 1934; Bourdieu, 1990). In the sociological dimension, the concept of humans as a transient meta-level offers a new approach to understanding social institutions as derivatives of the human ability to create para-organismal systems. This allows rethinking institutionalization processes as the formation of stable structures arising from temporary interactions (Bourdieu, 1990; Giddens, 1984). For anthropology, understanding culture as a manifestation of a meta-process generated by human activity opens new possibilities for analyzing cultural dynamics and mechanisms of tradition transmission across generations (Lotman, 1990; Ingold, 2000). In psychiatry, the concept of the transient meta-level provides a theoretical basis for understanding mental disorders as disturbances of wholeness and balance between different manifestations of para-organismal organization (Fuchs, 2018). Developmental psychology gains the opportunity to consider personality formation as a process of complication and integration of the transient para-organismal level, where age-related crises correspond to bifurcation points in the restructuring of the para-organismal system (Thompson, 2007; Mead, 1934). The philosophical significance of this concept lies in proposing a solution to the problem of personal identity through acknowledging the distributed nature of identity in created systems and cultural artifacts (Thompson, 2007; Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). Development prospects of this approach are associated with creating an integral anthropology overcoming traditional dualisms of body and consciousness, individual and society, biological and cultural (Thompson, 2007; Ingold, 2000; Fuchs, 2018). This paradigm allows considering human existence as a continuous process of creating and transforming complex organizational systems, ensuring a unique ability to overcome one's own biological and psychological boundaries. The interdisciplinary potential of the concept opens new possibilities for dialogue between natural and human sciences, offering a unified conceptual apparatus for describing human complexity in all its fullness and multidimensionality. Cosmogonic implications of hierarchical synthesis The hierarchy of structures in the Universe demonstrates sequential complication of material organization through self-organization mechanisms. From the quark-gluon plasma of the early Universe to the formation of hadrons and atoms, a universal pattern of new organizational levels emerging through cooperation of elementary components is traceable (Peebles, 2020). Modern cosmology reveals an amazing unity of physical laws operating at all scales—from quantum to galactic superclusters (Rees, 2000). Self-organization in physical systems manifests in the formation of dissipative structures described by Prigogine, where in open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, ordered states spontaneously arise (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). The anthropic principle in the context of hierarchical synthesis acquires new resonance: the fine-tuning of fundamental constants can be viewed as a necessary condition for the possibility of sequential unfolding of hierarchical levels of material organization (Barrow & Tipler, 1986). The formation of galaxies and stellar systems represents a large-scale process of cosmic self-organization. Protogalactic clouds, consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium, under gravitational forces form complex structures with emergent properties (Mo, van den Bosch & White, 2010). Stars as thermonuclear reactors become factories for producing heavy elements, creating a necessary condition for the subsequent emergence of planetary systems and biological evolution. Planetary systems can be considered as a result of hierarchical synthesis on a cosmic scale. Their formation and evolution demonstrate features characteristic of the universal principle: temporality of existence, functional wholeness, and emergent properties (Lissauer & de Pater, 2019). The emergence of life, as a manifestation of system emergence during hierarchical synthesis (author's assumption), in a cosmic context appears as a natural stage of cosmic evolution, where prebiotic chemistry and subsequent biological evolution realize the principle of increasing self-organization at a new level of complexity (De Duve, 1995). The unity of micro- and macrocosm finds natural explanation within the framework of hierarchical synthesis. Fundamental physical interactions determining the behavior of elementary particles, through successive organizational levels, manifest in macroscopic properties of complex systems (Wilczek, 2021). This approach overcomes the traditional gap between quantum and classical physics, offering a holistic vision of physical reality. The problem of multiple worlds in the context of the universal principle acquires a new dimension: if the principle of hierarchical self-organization is truly universal, then in other regions of the Universe with suitable conditions, complex hierarchically organized systems should also arise (Kasting, 2010). Cosmic evolution and humanity's place in it appear as a particular manifestation of universal laws of self-organization, where human consciousness and culture represent one possible path for realizing the principle of hierarchical complexity (Dick, 1996). Methodological problems of hierarchical synthesis A key methodological problem is developing clear criteria for identifying manifestations of hierarchical synthesis. Operationalizable parameters are needed to distinguish genuine cases of hierarchical self-organization from simple aggregations or random coincidences (Bunge, 1998). Proposed criteria include: presence of emergent properties, temporary nature of functional wholeness, presence of critical transition points, and the ability to generate new organizational levels. The problem of falsifiability, formulated by Popper as a criterion of scientificity, presents particular difficulty for universal principles (Popper, 2002). To verify the principle of hierarchical self-organization, developing specific testable predictions that could be refuted by empirical data is necessary. One possible path is formulating specific hypotheses about the existence of certain types of transitional structures in various domains of reality. Interdisciplinary approaches become a necessary condition for adequately researching the universal principle. Integrating methods from synergetics, complex systems theory, developmental biology, and social sciences allows identifying invariant organizational patterns at different levels of reality (Mitchell, 2009). However, such integration requires overcoming terminological and methodological barriers between disciplines. The danger of unjustified holism and panpsychism represents a serious challenge for developing the principle of hierarchical self-organization. Critics rightly point to the risk of endowing any systems with properties of wholeness and goal-directedness (Nagel, 1979). To avoid these extremes, clear distinction between metaphorical and literal application of concepts of organization and purposiveness is necessary. The problem of demarcating principle manifestations requires developing clear boundaries of concept applicability. The question of which systems can be considered examples of hierarchical self-organization remains open (Dupré, 1993). Both excessive expansion and unjustified narrowing of the concept must be avoided. Relationship with other universal theories, such as evolution theory, synergetics, or systems theory, requires careful methodological analysis (Bertalanffy, 1968). The principle of hierarchical self-organization should not replace existing theories but can serve as a meta-theoretical basis for their integration. A key task is determining the specific contribution of the proposed principle to understanding universal mechanisms of complexity organization. Practical and ethical implications of hierarchical synthesis Hierarchical synthesis opens new perspectives for scientific research, offering an integral paradigm for studying complex systems. A new research program is forming, aimed at identifying general patterns of organization at different levels of reality—from molecular interactions to social structures (Mitchell, 2009). This program implies developing a special methodological apparatus capable of adequately describing processes of emergence, stability, and transformation of hierarchically organized systems. Interdisciplinary projects based on the principle of hierarchical self-organization allow overcoming traditional fragmentation of scientific knowledge. Research uniting specialists from various fields—from physics and biology to sociology and cognitive sciences—can identify invariant patterns of self-organization (Nowotny, Scott & Gibbons, 2001). Educational implications of the principle include the need to develop new academic courses oriented towards forming holistic thinking and understanding the unity of organizational laws in nature and society (Sterling, 2001). The principle of hierarchical self-organization implies rethinking attitudes towards nature through recognizing the value and wholeness of natural systems at all organizational levels. Understanding nature as a set of interconnected hierarchical systems forms the basis for a new ecological consciousness (Leopold, 1949). Social responsibility in cooperative systems acquires particular significance in the context of acknowledging the interdependence of all elements in complex social structures. Ecological ethics based on the principle of hierarchical self-organization emphasizes the necessity of preserving not only individual species but also entire ecosystems as functional units of the biosphere (Naess, 1989). This approach implies humanity's responsibility for maintaining equilibrium in global systems, considering humanity's special role as a being capable of consciously influencing self-organization processes on a planetary scale. Research prospects for hierarchical synthesis are associated with developing quantitative models allowing prediction of the emergence and dynamics of complex systems (Holland, 2014). Of particular interest is studying critical transition points between organizational levels and factors determining the stability of emerging structures. Possible technological applications of the principle include developing adaptive control systems, bio-inspired materials, and methods for regulating complex networks (Ball, 2018). Philosophical horizons opened by the principle are associated with rethinking humanity's place in the universal hierarchy of self-organizing systems and developing a new anthropology overcoming traditional divisions (Jonas, 1984). CONCLUSION The conducted research demonstrates that hierarchical synthesis represents a fundamental regularity of complexity organization, manifesting at all levels of reality—from quantum systems to sociocultural structures. Analysis of main propositions allows asserting that recursive cooperation of autonomous elements, emergence of emergent properties, temporality of functional wholes, and presence of critical transition points form a system of interconnected characteristics determining the dynamics of complex systems. An important result is substantiating the fractal nature of this principle, confirming its universality and scale invariance. For modern philosophy, this principle has transformative significance, offering a path to overcoming traditional oppositions and creating a holistic doctrine of being. It allows rethinking the part-whole relationship, overcoming the divide between natural and human sciences, and developing new approaches to the problem of consciousness and culture. Further research prospects are associated with developing quantitative models of hierarchical self-organization, experimental study of critical transition points between organizational levels, and applying the principle to solving practical problems in ecology, medicine, and social management. Studying mechanisms of transcending system limits—the ability to generate new autonomous organizational levels—acquires particular importance. In conclusion, the necessity of interdisciplinary interaction for further developing the concept should be emphasized. Physicists and biologists, sociologists and philosophers, ecologists and artificial intelligence specialists—all possess unique experience in studying various manifestations of hierarchical self-organization. Only by combining efforts can the scientific community reveal the full potential of hierarchical synthesis as a foundation for creating an integral worldview. Declarations FINDINGS 1. The universal nature of the principle of hierarchical self-organization, manifesting at all levels of material organization—from quantum systems to social structures, has been established. The unity of cooperation and integration mechanisms confirms the fundamental nature of this principle. 2. The recursive nature of cooperative processes has been identified, whereby autonomous elements, forming functional wholes, themselves become elements of subsequent organizational levels. This pattern demonstrates scale invariance and fractal properties. 3. The key role of emergent properties as qualitatively new characteristics arising at each integration level and irreducible to properties of constituent elements has been substantiated. Emergence is a universal attribute of hierarchical self-organization. 4. The significance of temporality and processuality as fundamental attributes of self-organizing systems has been established. Dynamic equilibrium between integration and disintegration processes determines the temporal frameworks of functional wholes' existence. 5. The critical role of bifurcation points in transitions between organizational levels has been determined. The nonlinear nature of these transitions and their sensitivity to small influences testify to the universality of qualitative transformation mechanisms. 6. The ability of complex systems for transcendence—generating new autonomous organizational levels overcoming limitations of original elements—has been proven. This mechanism ensures the cumulative nature of complexity evolution. 7. An integral theoretical basis has been developed, allowing overcoming traditional dualisms in understanding relationships between different levels of material organization. The proposed approach creates a foundation for interdisciplinary knowledge synthesis. The obtained results open prospects for developing a unified theory of complexity and have fundamental significance for rethinking humanity's place in the universal hierarchy of self-organizing systems. References Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2014). Molecular biology of the cell (6th ed.). Garland Science. Aristotle. (2019). Metaphysics (A. V. Kubitsky, Trans.; M. I. Itkin, Ed.). Academicheskii Proekt. (Original work published ca. 330 BCE). Atkins, P., & Friedman, R. (2010). Molecular quantum mechanics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Ball, P. (2020). Beyond weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different . The University of Chicago Press. Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle . Oxford University Press. Bauer, M., Goyal, A., Goyal, S., Reddy, G., Chakrabarti, S., Desai, M. M., Gilpin, W., Grilli, J., Husain, K., Jain, S., Jolly, M. K., Kawaguchi, K., Koseska, A., Lin, M., Narlikar, L., Pigolotti, S., Raju, A., Shrinivas, K., Siddharthan, R., … Vaikuntanathan, S. (2025). Unifying theories in high-dimensional biology: Approaches, challenges and opportunities [Preprint submitted to arXiv]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.10111 Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications . George Braziller. Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge . Wiley. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press. Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of science: Volume 1, From problem to theory (Rev. ed.). Transaction Publishers. Bunge, M. (2003). Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge . University of Toronto Press. Burton, G. J., & Fowden, A. L. (2015). The placenta: A multifaceted, transient organ. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 370(1663), 20140066. Capra, F. (2003). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living . Anchor Books. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension . Oxford University Press. Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (Eds.). (2006). The re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypothesis from science to religion . Oxford University Press. Cross, J. C., Baczyk, D., Dobric, N., Hemberger, M., Hughes, M., Simmons, D. G., Yamamoto, H., & Kingdom, J. C. P. (2003). Genes, development and evolution of the placenta. Placenta , 24(2–3), 123–130. 10.1098/rstb.2014.0066 Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain . W.W. Norton & Company. De Duve, C. (1995). Vital dust: Life as a cosmic imperative . Basic Books. De Duve, C. (2005). Singularities: Landmarks on the pathways of life . Cambridge University Press. Deeming, D. C. (Ed.). (2004). Reptilian incubation: Environment, evolution and behaviour . Nottingham University Press. Dick, S. J. (1996). The biological universe: The twentieth-century extraterrestrial life debate and the limits of science . Cambridge University Press. Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science . Harvard University Press. Epstein, I. R., & Pojman, J. A. (1998). An introduction to nonlinear chemical dynamics: Oscillations, waves, patterns, and chaos . Oxford University Press. Fuchs, T. (2018). Ecology of the brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind . Oxford University Press. Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.; 2nd rev. ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960). Giddens, A. (19amer84). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration . University of California Press. Gilbert, S. F. (2016). Developmental biology (11th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Gilbert, S. F., Sapp, J., & Tauber, A. I. (2012). A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals. The Quarterly Review of Biology , 87(4), 325–341. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/668166 Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An introduction. Nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review , 35(4), 519–530. Hendry, R. F. (2006). Is there downward causation in chemistry? In D. Baird, E. Scerri, & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (pp. 173–189). Springer. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science . University of Notre Dame Press. Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction . Oxford University Press. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1997). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v nauchno-teoreticheskom myshlenii [Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific-theoretical thinking]. ROSSPEN. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill . Routledge. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life . The MIT Press. Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age . University of Chicago Press. Kasting, J. F. (2010). How to find a habitable planet . Princeton University Press. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution . Oxford University Press. Kedrov, B. M. (1972). O metode nauchnogo poznaniya [On the method of scientific cognition]. Nauka. Kopnin, P. V. (1973). Dialektika kak logika i teoriya poznaniya [Dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge]. Nauka. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962). Lane, N. (2015). The vital question: Energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life . W.W. Norton & Company. Lektorsky, V. A. (1980). Subyekt, ob’yekt, poznanie [Subject, object, cognition]. Nauka. Lehn, J.-M. (1995). Supramolecular chemistry: Concepts and perspectives . Wiley-VCH. Leibniz, G. W. (2014). The Monadology and other philosophical writings (R. Latta, Trans.). Martino Fine Books. (Original work published 1714). Lemeshchenko, V. V. [ Лемещенко , В . В .] (2025). Transient para-organismic level of structural organization as a mechanism of new trait formation in the animal hierarchy [Препринт, на русском языке: "Транзиторный параорганизменный уровень структурной организации как механизм формирования новых признаков в иерархии животного мира"]. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3113891 Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here and there . Oxford University Press. Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems , 1(5), 431–436. Lissauer, J. J., & de Pater, I. (2019). Fundamental planetary science: Physics, chemistry and habitability (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture (A. Shukman, Trans.). I.B. Tauris. Margulis, L. (1993). Symbiosis in cell evolution: Microbial communities in the Archean and Proterozoic eons (2nd ed.). W. H. Freeman. Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, self, and society: The definitive edition (C. W. Morris, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934). Medzhitov, R. (2021). The spectrum of inflammatory responses. Science , 374(6571), 1070–1075. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.abi5200 Merkulov, I. P. (1999). Kognitivnaya evolyutsiya [Cognitive evolution]. ROSSPEN. Misteli, T. (2020). The self-organizing genome: Principles of genome architecture and function. Cell , 183(1), 28–45. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.014 Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour . Oxford University Press. Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy . The University of Chicago Press. Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., Petersen, S., Beattie, C., Sadik, A., Antonoglou, I., King, H., Kumaran, D., Wierstra, D., Legg, S., & Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature , 518(7540), 529–533. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature14236 Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. D. M. (2010). Galaxy formation and evolution . Cambridge University Press. Moffett, A., & Colucci, F. (2014). Uterine NK cells: Active regulators at the maternal-fetal interface. The Journal of Clinical Investigation , 124(5), 1872–1879. Mor, G., & Cardenas, I. (2010). The immune system in pregnancy: A unique complexity. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology , 63(6), 425–433. Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy (D. Rothenberg, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation . Hackett Publishing Company. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change . Princeton University Press. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty . Polity Press. Packard, M. J., & Seymour, R. S. (1997). Evolution of the amniote egg. In S. S. Sumida & K. L. M. Martin (Eds.), Amniote origins: Completing the transition to land (pp. 265–290). Academic Press. Peebles, P. J. E. (2020). Cosmology’s century: An inside history of our modern understanding of the universe . Princeton University Press. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (2nd ed.). Routledge. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature . Bantam Books. Rees, M. (1999). Just six numbers: The deep forces that shape the universe . Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Sadovsky, V. N. (1974). Osnovaniya obshchey teorii system [Foundations of general systems theory]. Nauka. Sender, R., Fuchs, S., & Milo, R. (2016). Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLOS Biology , 14(8), e1002533. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533 Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change . Green Books. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Turco, M. Y., Gardner, L., Kay, R. G., Hamilton, R. S., Prater, M., Hollinshead, M. S., McWhinnie, A., Esposito, L., Fernando, R., Skelton, H., Reimann, F., Gribble, F. M., Sharkey, A., Marsh, S. G. E., O’Rahilly, S., Hemberger, M., Burton, G. J., & Moffett, A. (2018). Trophoblast organoids as a model for maternal–fetal interactions during human placentation. Nature , 564(7735), 263–267. Vernadsky, V. I. (1997). The biosphere (D. B. Langmuir, Trans.). Copernicus. (Original work published 1926). Vernadsky, V. I. (1991). Nauchnaya mysl' kak planetnoe yavlenie [Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon] (A. L. Yanshin, Ed.). Nauka. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world . Free Press. (Original work published 1925). Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology (D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). Free Press. (Original work published 1929). Whitesides, G. M., & Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at all scales. Science , 295(5564), 2418–2421. Wilczek, F. (2021). Fundamentals: Ten keys to reality . Penguin Press. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge . Alfred A. Knopf. Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of earth . Liveright Publishing. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8425906","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":565464156,"identity":"700978e1-8945-47ac-a188-ee3173ccda5c","order_by":0,"name":"Vladimir Lemeshchenko","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-7758","institution":"V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vladimir","middleName":"","lastName":"Lemeshchenko","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-22 14:18:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99492902,"identity":"128b35f1-0196-4fa1-97d3-06699a20d427","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 05:34:42","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":46353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LemeshcvhenkoVAmetatheory.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/cea3cc8d023125a01267cf63.docx"},{"id":99492901,"identity":"5d0f7d18-8631-4e11-abe6-a3f4e6625703","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 05:34:42","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8425906.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/3d22a0686957543be78b3b28.json"},{"id":99790314,"identity":"529f5fbc-9553-4cc5-a6ff-4ee792519064","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 12:57:44","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131568,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84259060enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/d1e0c4b2e624344cfb85a3f0.xml"},{"id":99492904,"identity":"3f189e3f-de89-419a-b7cf-8dbf2a4c2369","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 05:34:42","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129436,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84259060structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/32a3ddeed91e2c1143c5643d.xml"},{"id":99492905,"identity":"cb320152-e850-4063-814d-8590a065ead4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 05:34:42","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":138471,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/006d8da73d8463a7d8493355.html"},{"id":99802892,"identity":"03abfc20-0a2b-48a4-9391-0dd6085ae7ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 14:08:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":732376,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8425906/v1/326e7976-17c4-4285-9e92-b1888a4477a2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation: the recursive transit of complexity through transitional meta-levels\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eModern philosophy of science is experiencing a methodological crisis due to the exhaustion of the explanatory potential of the reductionist paradigm. Despite the outstanding achievements of the analytical approach in particle physics and molecular biology, its epistemological limitations become increasingly evident when studying complex biological, ecological, and social systems (Prigogine \u0026amp; Stengers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). Classical reductionism demonstrates a fundamental inability to adequately describe emergent properties and the hierarchical organization of living systems, where the whole possesses qualities not derivable from its constituent parts (Kauffman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). The growing need for integrative approaches reflects a fundamental shift in the scientific paradigm\u0026mdash;a transition from analyzing isolated elements to a holistic understanding of complex systems (Capra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This methodological turn has deep historical roots, traceable from Aristotelian natural philosophy with his doctrine of four causes, through the natural-philosophical explorations of the Romantics and Goethe, to 20th-century systems concepts and modern complexity theories (Merkulov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to these challenges, a new direction of scientific thought is emerging, aimed at overcoming the traditional divide between the natural sciences and humanities. It inherits and develops ideas from Bertalanffy's systems theory (the idea of emergence, the system's action exceeding the mechanistic sum of its parts), Haken's synergetics (synergetics and self-organization of open systems), and Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures (stable non-equilibrium structures and non-equilibrium as the basis of order), offering an integral approach to understanding the organization of complexity in nature (Bertalanffy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e; Haken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Prigogine \u0026amp; Stengers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). It should be noted that these meta-ideas, based primarily on specific scientific fields (biology and philosophy, physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics respectively), laid the foundation for the development of integrative approaches in advancing knowledge about the world.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrently, the ideas of creating meta-theories are also generating interest among scientists, as evidenced by the preprint by Marianne Bauer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The authors note that with the advancement of high-dimensional biological datasets, two main theoretical approaches have emerged. The first is aimed at finding an effective low-dimensional description of systems through data compression or the identification of latent structures. The second approach, conversely, leverages high dimensionality itself by analyzing statistical patterns to model states and dynamics. Research prospects include quantifying dimensionality, studying the factors that shape subspaces, and drawing parallels between biological and artificial systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main thesis of this work is that universal principles and mechanisms of self-organization manifest at all levels of material organization\u0026mdash;from molecular interactions and cellular processes to social structures, ecological systems, and even higher levels of material organization. Developing a unified conceptual language for describing the dynamic hierarchy of complex systems opens prospects for creating a general theory of complexity capable of overcoming the centuries-old dichotomy between mechanistic and holistic worldviews (Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND TASKS","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Objective: To develop a meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fundamental pattern in the formation of complex systems at various levels of material organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch Tasks:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conduct an interdisciplinary analysis of manifestations of hierarchical self-organization in physical, biological, and social systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Identify and systematize criteria for identifying transient meta-levels of structural organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Develop a theoretical model of hierarchical synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Investigate emergent properties and critical transition points between organizational levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analyze methodological problems of verifying hierarchical synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Determine practical applications and ethical implications of the proposed concept.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7. \u0026nbsp;Formulate promising directions for further research within the developed theoretical paradigm.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is based on a comprehensive methodological strategy integrating interdisciplinary analysis, theoretical modeling, and comparative approaches. The foundation of the study comprised the following methods:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interdisciplinary synthesis was implemented through comparative analysis of concepts from various fields of knowledge (systems theory, synergetics, developmental biology, sociology) using a systems approach (Bertalanffy, 1968). The application of general scientific research methods included analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction (Kedrov, 1972).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Theoretical modeling was carried out through the development of conceptual schemes (models of transient meta-level, hierarchical synthesis) using methods of idealization and formalization. The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete allowed for formulating criteria for identifying transient meta-levels \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eLektorsky, 1980\u003cstrong\u003e;\u003c/strong\u003e Ilyenkov, 1997).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Comparative analysis was applied using the historical-genetic method to identify analogies in self-organization processes at different levels of reality. The dialectical method facilitated the analysis of transitional states and mechanisms of element integration into systemic wholes (Merkulov, 1999; Kopnin, 1973).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Heuristic procedures included the method of conceptual extrapolation based on principles of theoretical biology and philosophy of science (Hesse, 1966). The systems approach ensured the construction of a unified conceptual space for analyzing complex systems (Sadovsky, 1974).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCritical-reflexive analysis used Bohr's principle of complementarity (Bohr, 1958) and methods of methodological reflection to assess the limits of applicability of the proposed model. The hermeneutic approach allowed for interpreting the obtained results in the context of modern science (Gadamer, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis theoretical research article, entitled \"Towards a Meta-Theory of Hierarchical Synthesis: A Fundamental Pattern in the Formation of Complex Systems,\" does not involve direct empirical experimentation with human participants or animals. The study is a conceptual and theoretical inquiry based on the interdisciplinary analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge and published literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eHuman Subjects:\u003c/strong\u003e No human subjects were recruited, interviewed, observed, or involved in any primary data collection. The analysis of social systems is conducted at a theoretical level, utilizing existing sociological and philosophical concepts. Therefore, no approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee concerning human subjects research was required or obtained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eAnimal Subjects:\u003c/strong\u003e No animals were used in any experimental capacity for this research. The discussion of biological systems is based on established principles from theoretical biology and systems theory drawn from the scientific literature. Therefore, no approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethical review for animal experimentation was required or obtained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eResearch Integrity:\u003c/strong\u003e All intellectual material from other authors used in the development of the theoretical model has been, or will be, appropriately cited in accordance with academic standards to avoid plagiarism. The research methodology, as described, relies on critical analysis and synthesis of published ideas, not on the generation of new empirical data from living beings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical considerations of this work lie not in its methods of data acquisition, but in the \u003cstrong\u003eanalysis of the ethical implications\u003c/strong\u003e of the proposed concept itself, which is explicitly addressed as \u003cstrong\u003eResearch Task 6\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Determine practical applications and ethical implications of the proposed concept\"). This task involves a reflexive and critical examination of the potential consequences of applying a theory of hierarchical synthesis to complex social and socio-technical systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe have established that the increasing complexity of the material world's structure occurs through the manifestation of a universal meta-process, which we propose to term «\u003cstrong\u003eHierarchical synthesis\u003c/strong\u003e». Hierarchical synthesis is a universal law of the universe, describing the process of generating complexity through a recurring cycle: stable level of organization (N) → mandatory phase of transient meta-level (cooperation and restructuring) → emergence of a new stable level (N+1) with emergent properties, which in turn becomes the basis for initiating the next cycle of hierarchical synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe transient meta-level is not merely \"embedded\" in hierarchical synthesis—it is its engine and necessary phase. Without this transient, meta-stable phase of reorganization, a leap to the next level of complexity is impossible. The universal structure of the transient meta-level represents a dynamic state that inevitably arises between two stable levels of organization as a mechanism for qualitative transition. It is triggered by an internal limit or external challenge that cannot be resolved within the existing system. In response, the system enters a phase of destabilization, where old rigid connections disintegrate, and elements, losing part of their autonomy, engage in multiple trial, unstable cooperations. This is a period of maximum plasticity and internal conflict, where old and new patterns compete. From this chaos, through processes of competition and selection, one dominant configuration gradually channels and strengthens—the nascent order parameter of the future whole. It begins to subordinate the behavior of elements, reducing entropy and variability, marking the integration phase. The process concludes with the consolidation of a new structure, which, gaining stability, exits the transient state, demonstrating fundamentally new, emergent properties. Thus, the transient meta-level performs the function of a universal and necessary \"reorganization protocol\"—the narrow gate through which any system must pass to leap to the next level of complexity, transforming crisis into a new whole.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFractal nature of hierarchical synthesis: conceptual grounding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe universal algorithm of hierarchical synthesis, manifesting at all levels of material organization, demonstrates fundamental properties of fractal structures. A fractal is a geometric figure, mathematical model, or natural object (process) characterized by self-similarity—the property where a part of the structure repeats the whole at a reduced scale. This means that the same organizational pattern is observable when changing the scale of the system. Classic mathematical examples include the Koch curve, Sierpinski triangle, and Mandelbrot set.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn nature, fractal principles underlie the structure of trees (branching), circulatory and respiratory systems (optimization of resource delivery), coastlines, and clouds. The most important quantitative characteristic of a fractal is its fractal dimension (Hausdorff dimension), which can be expressed as a non-integer (fractional) number. Unlike Euclidean objects (line — 1D, plane — 2D, cube — 3D), fractal dimension reflects the degree of complexity, the \"filledness\" of space by the structure. For example, the Koch curve has a dimension of approximately 1.26, indicating greater complexity than a smooth line but less than a plane. The principle of hierarchical synthesis is fractal in essence:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; Process Self-Similarity.\u0026nbsp;The basic sequence \"level N → transient meta-level (cooperation) → level N+1 with emergent properties\" recursively repeats at qualitatively different scales—from molecular interactions to cosmogonic processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; Scale Invariance. Universal transition criteria (destabilization, pattern competition, integration around an order parameter, consolidation) remain invariant when transitioning between levels, corresponding to a fractal pattern.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; Recursive Generation of Complexity. The new stable level (N+1) itself becomes an element for the next act of cooperation, similar to how a fractal structure unfolds through infinite application of a simple rule.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the entire observable hierarchy of the Universe is the result of recursive application\u0026nbsp;of this single fractal algorithm, obeying the regularities of hierarchical synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhilosophical foundations of hierarchical synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHierarchical synthesis represents a fundamental mode of existence for complex systems, manifesting at all levels of material organization. Unlike static ontological models, this principle emphasizes the procedural nature of existence, where stability arises as a dynamic equilibrium between integration and disintegration processes (Prigogine \u0026amp; Stengers, 1984). The relationship between part and whole in such systems is characterized by dialectical unity: elements retain relative autonomy while simultaneously participating in the formation of new wholes with emergent properties (Bertalanffy, 1968). Temporality and processuality act as key ontological categories in the context of this principle. Each level of organization exists as a temporary stabilization in a continuous flow of transformations, where periods of relative stability alternate with phases of bifurcational transitions (Haken, 1983). This processual understanding of being finds reflection in the concept of \"becoming\" as opposed to static \"being,\" fundamentally distinguishing the proposed approach from the substantial ontology of classical philosophy (Whitehead, 1978).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive strategies for the study of hierarchical synthesis require the development of new methodological approaches overcoming the limitations of traditional reductionism. A synthesis of analytical methods aimed at identifying elementary components and holistic approaches that account for emergent properties of whole systems is necessary (Kauffman, 1993). This implies the development of a special categorical apparatus capable of adequately describing self-organization processes at different levels of complexity. The problem of reduction and emergence acquires particular significance in the context of this principle. If classical reductionism sought to reduce the properties of the whole to the characteristics of its constituent elements, the principle of hierarchical self-organization acknowledges the fundamental irreducibility of emergent properties arising at each new level of integration (Clayton \u0026amp; Davies, 2006). This raises the question of the need to develop a non-reductionist methodology capable of accounting for both continuity and qualitative uniqueness of different organizational levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHistorical prerequisites of hierarchical synthesis can be traced in various philosophical traditions. Aristotelian concepts of wholeness, with his doctrine of four causes and the idea of the irreducibility of the whole to the sum of its parts, represent one of the first attempts at comprehending hierarchical organization (Aristotle, 2019). Leibnizian monads and the principle of pre-established harmony, despite their metaphysical nature, contain an important proposition about the coordination of elements within a whole (Leibniz, 2014). A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy with its emphasis on eventfulness and interconnectedness of all elements of reality offers an ontological\u0026nbsp;foundation for understanding the dynamic nature of hierarchical self-organization (Whitehead, 1967). Russian cosmism, particularly V.I. Vernadsky's ideas about the biosphere and noosphere, develops the notion of interconnection between different organizational levels and the co-evolution of natural and social systems (Vernadsky, 1997).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eManifestations of hierarchical synthesis at the atomic-molecular level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHierarchical synthesis finds expression already at the level of elementary particles, atoms, and molecules, where self-organization manifests as a fundamental property of matter. The formation of atomic nuclei from nucleons and electron shells demonstrates the emergence of qualitatively new properties not reducible to the characteristics of their constituent elementary particles (Prigogine \u0026amp; Stengers, 1984). The part-whole relationship in chemical systems is particularly evident in the formation of chemical compounds, where molecules acquire properties absent in individual atoms, indicating genuine emergence (Bunge, 2003). Temporality and processuality of molecular complexes reflect the dynamic nature of chemical bonds and molecular conformations. Modern research shows that many molecular systems exist as dynamic ensembles, constantly rearranging between various conformational states (Lehn, 1995). This processuality is especially pronounced in biological macromolecules, where functional activity is directly linked to the ability for reversible structural rearrangements (Alberts et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive strategies in chemistry and molecular physicsrequire a combination of quantum-mechanical and statistical approaches. On one hand, quantum mechanics allows describing the behavior of individual particles; on the other, statistical physics is necessary for understanding collective properties of molecular ensembles (Atkins \u0026amp; Friedman, 2010). This methodological duality reflects the fundamental impossibility of completely reducing properties of complex molecular systems to those of their individual components. The problem of reduction and emergence in chemical systems acquires particular acuteness when considering the transition from atoms to molecules. Although chemical properties can formally be derived from quantum-mechanical principles, the practical impossibility of such derivation for complex systems points to the ontological status of emergent properties (Hendry, 2022). The principle of hierarchical self-organization finds convincing confirmation in the theory of chemical evolution, which traces the transition from simple molecules to complex biopolymers through successive stages of self-organization (De Duve, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-organization of molecules into supramolecular complexes represents a classic example of the universal principle's manifestation. The formation of lipid bilayers, molecular crystals, and supramolecular ensembles demonstrates molecules' ability for spontaneous formation of ordered structures (Whitesides \u0026amp; Grzybowski, 2002). These processes are characterized by cooperativity of interactions, where the formation of initial structures facilitates subsequent self-organization. Cooperative effects in chemical reactions, such as autocatalytic cycles and oscillatory reactions, provide convincing experimental confirmations of the hierarchical self-organization principle. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction and other oscillatory systems demonstrate the emergence of temporal and spatial structures in homogeneous chemical media (Epstein \u0026amp; Pojman, 1998).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHierarchical synthesis in biological systems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the molecular level, the principle of hierarchical self-organization manifests in cooperative interactions within biochemical networks, where enzymatic complexes function as coordinated systems. Metabolomics research demonstrates that cellular metabolism represents not merely a set of separate reactions but an integrated network with emergent properties (Alberts et al., 2014). Symbiogenesis, extensively studied by Lynn Margulis, serves as a classic example of forming a new organizational level through the integration of previously independent organisms (Margulis, 1993). The cell represents the result of multi-level integration, where various organelles and molecular complexes function as a coordinated system. Modern cell biology data show that the eukaryotic cell arose through a series of symbiogenetic events, each creating a new level of functional wholeness (Lane, 2015). Molecular machines, such as ribosomes and proteasomes, demonstrate properties of transient functional wholes arising during the execution of specific tasks (Misteli, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOntogenesis can be viewed as a sequence of hierarchical self-organization phases, where each developmental stage is characterized by the formation of temporary functional wholes. Embryonic organizers, described by Spemann, act as self-organization centers coordinating the development of complex structures (Gilbert, 2016). Critical periods of development represent bifurcation points when the system transitions to a new organizational level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImmunological research reveals complex tolerance mechanisms allowing two genetically different organisms to function as a single system (Moffett \u0026amp; Colucci, 2014). The placental barrier functions not merely as a filter but as an active interface for inter-organism communication. The immune system demonstrates properties of a distributed para-organismal structure, where individual cells and molecules respond coordinately to external influences (Medzhitov, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe transient para-organismal level of structural organization as a particular manifestation of the transient meta-level in biology is described in the preprint by Lemeshchenko V.V. (2025). An example of such a para-organismal structure \u003cstrong\u003eis\u003c/strong\u003e the \"mother-placenta-fetus\" system, which represents a classic example of hierarchical self-organization, where two genetically different organisms form a temporary functional whole (Burton \u0026amp; Fowden, 2015). The placenta functions as a unique interface, providing not only substance exchange but also complex immunological and endocrine communication (Turco et al., 2018). Emergent properties of this system include the formation of immune tolerance, synchronization of physiological processes, and coordinated fetal growth (Mor et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn oviparous amniotes (reptiles, birds), the egg represents an isolated para-organismal system where the embryo develops in an autonomous environment provided by yolk reserves and protected by specialized membranes of dual origin—both from the embryo itself and the mother (Packard \u0026amp; Seymour, 1997). This system also exhibits properties of a transient para-organismal level of structural organization: temporary wholeness (incubation period), functional specialization of membranes, and emergent properties of the developing system (Deeming, 2004). Critical points in both cases are transition moments: implantation and birth in placental species; the beginning and end of incubation in oviparous species. These transitions are characterized by qualitative changes in the organization of the biological system (Cross et al., 2003). Such a manifestation of the transient meta-level in the series of amniotes is proposed by Lemeshchenko V.V. (2025) to be considered «a transient para-organismal level», located between the organism and population levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial insects, such as ants and bees, form superorganisms where individual individuals function as elements of a single system. Sociobiology research shows that such systems possess emergent properties not reducible to the behavior of individual individuals (Wilson, 2012). Cooperative behavior and division of labor ensure the functional wholeness of the colony as a single organism. Ecosystems represent complex hierarchies of self-organizing systems where various species form stable cooperative networks. Modern ecology views ecosystems as dynamic wholes possessing self-regulation properties (Levin, 1998). Vernadsky's biosphere concept finds new understanding through the prism of hierarchical synthesis, where the biosphere appears as a global self-organizing system (Vernadsky, 1991).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHierarchical synthesis in social and cultural systems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial institutions (family, state, economic systems) demonstrate all characteristics of hierarchical self-organization. The family as the elementary unit of society represents a transient system where individuals form a functional whole with emergent properties not reducible to the qualities of individual members (Giddens, 1984). State institutions arise as a result of cooperation among numerous individuals, creating new organizational levels with their own normative structure and regulatory mechanisms (North, 2005).\u0026nbsp;Economic systems, as demonstrated by North and supported by Hayek, are formed through the self-organization of economic agents, generating macroeconomic regularities that cannot be derived from individual behavior (Hayek, 1945).\u0026nbsp;Educational systems and scientific communities represent a special class of para-organismal structures. Academic communities, according to Kuhn, function as whole systems developing paradigmatic foundations for scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 1962). Educational institutions create temporary cooperative \"teacher-student\" systems where qualitatively new knowledge arises, not reducible to the simple sum of transmitted information (Vygotsky, 1978).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsciousness can be viewed as an emergent property arising in the \"brain-culture\" system. Modern cognitive science research shows that consciousness results from the integration of neural networks and cultural patterns (Clark, 2008). Language functions as a para-organismal system existing in the space between individuals and ensuring coordination of collective activity (Deacon, 1997). Art and science as products of hierarchical self-organization demonstrate culture's ability to generate new meaning systems. Artistic works and scientific theories exist as autonomous meaning universes living their own lives in cultural space (Lotman, 1990). These systems possess the property of temporality—they arise, reach peak influence, and transform, yielding to new cultural forms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVernadsky's noosphere concept acquires new resonance in the context of technological evolution. The technosphere represents a global para-organismal system where technological artifacts form a whole with its own developmental dynamics (Vernadsky, 1998). Digital technologies create fundamentally new forms of transient meta-level—from virtual communities to distributed computing systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArtificial intelligence in the context of the universal principle can be considered a new form of self-organization. Modern AI systems demonstrate emergent properties not programmed by their creators (Mnih et al., 2015). The interaction of human and artificial intelligence generates hybrid cognitive systems with qualitatively new capabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHuman as a meta-transient para-organismal system: interdisciplinary perspectives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of the transient para-organismal level finds its most complete expression in understanding humans as complex hierarchical systems unifying biological organisms, mental processes, and social interactions into a dynamic functional whole. Modern research demonstrates that at the biological level, humans exist as a symbiotic \"macroorganism-microbiome\" system where microbial communities perform key metabolic and regulatory functions, forming a single ecological unit (Gilbert, Sapp \u0026amp; Tauber, 2012; Sender, Fuchs \u0026amp; Milo, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman mental organization represents an emergent property of the integration of cognitive, affective, and motivational processes, arising on the basis of neurophysiological structures but not reducible to them (Thompson, 2007). A unique characteristic of humans as a transient meta-level is the ability to generate autonomous para-organismal systems overcoming spatiotemporal limitations of the biological substrate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiological transcendence is accomplished through reproduction, where offspring inherit and transform genetic information, creating new independent organisms (Jablonka \u0026amp; Lamb, 2005). Intellectual transcendence manifests in creating scientific theories, artistic works, and technological artifacts that acquire independent existence in cultural space, living their own lives independently of the creator (Jablonka \u0026amp; Lamb, 2005; Lotman, 1990). Social transcendence is realized through educating students and followers who continue and develop ideas and practices beyond the individual existence of their creator (Mead, 1934; Bourdieu, 1990).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the sociological dimension, the concept of humans as a transient meta-level offers a new approach to understanding social institutions as derivatives of the human ability to create para-organismal systems. This allows rethinking institutionalization processes as the formation of stable structures arising from temporary interactions (Bourdieu, 1990; Giddens, 1984).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor anthropology, understanding culture as a manifestation of a meta-process generated by human activity opens new possibilities for analyzing cultural dynamics and mechanisms of tradition transmission across generations (Lotman, 1990; Ingold, 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn psychiatry, the concept of the transient meta-level provides a theoretical basis for understanding mental disorders as disturbances of wholeness and balance between different manifestations of para-organismal organization (Fuchs, 2018). Developmental psychology gains the opportunity to consider personality formation as a process of complication and integration of the transient para-organismal level, where age-related crises correspond to bifurcation points in the restructuring of the para-organismal system (Thompson, 2007; Mead, 1934).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe philosophical significance of this concept lies in proposing a solution to the problem of personal identity through acknowledging the distributed nature of identity in created systems and cultural artifacts (Thompson, 2007; Jablonka \u0026amp; Lamb, 2005). Development prospects of this approach are associated with creating an integral anthropology overcoming traditional dualisms of body and consciousness, individual and society, biological and cultural (Thompson, 2007; Ingold, 2000; Fuchs, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paradigm allows considering human existence as a continuous process of creating and transforming complex organizational systems, ensuring a unique ability to overcome one's own biological and psychological boundaries. The interdisciplinary potential of the concept opens new possibilities for dialogue between natural and human sciences, offering a unified conceptual apparatus for describing human complexity in all its fullness and multidimensionality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCosmogonic implications of hierarchical synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe hierarchy of structures in the Universe demonstrates sequential complication of material organization through self-organization mechanisms. From the quark-gluon plasma of the early Universe to the formation of hadrons and atoms, a universal pattern of new organizational levels emerging through cooperation of elementary components is traceable (Peebles, 2020). Modern cosmology reveals an amazing unity of physical laws operating at all scales—from quantum to galactic superclusters (Rees, 2000). Self-organization in physical systems manifests in the formation of dissipative structures described by Prigogine, where in open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, ordered states spontaneously arise (Prigogine \u0026amp; Stengers, 1984). The anthropic principle in the context of hierarchical synthesis acquires new resonance: the fine-tuning of fundamental constants can be viewed as a necessary condition for the possibility of sequential unfolding of hierarchical levels of material organization (Barrow \u0026amp; Tipler, 1986).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe formation of galaxies and stellar systems represents a large-scale process of cosmic self-organization. Protogalactic clouds, consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium, under gravitational forces form complex structures with emergent properties (Mo, van den Bosch \u0026amp; White, 2010). Stars as thermonuclear reactors become factories for producing heavy elements, creating a necessary condition for the subsequent emergence of planetary systems and biological evolution. Planetary systems can be considered as a result of hierarchical synthesis on a cosmic scale. Their formation and evolution demonstrate features characteristic of the universal principle: temporality of existence, functional wholeness, and emergent properties (Lissauer \u0026amp; de Pater, 2019). The emergence of life, as a manifestation of system emergence during hierarchical synthesis (author's assumption), in a cosmic context appears as a natural stage of cosmic evolution, where prebiotic chemistry and subsequent biological evolution realize the principle of increasing self-organization at a new level of complexity (De Duve, 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe unity of micro- and macrocosm finds natural explanation within the framework of hierarchical synthesis. Fundamental physical interactions determining the behavior of elementary particles, through successive organizational levels, manifest in macroscopic properties of complex systems (Wilczek, 2021). This approach overcomes the traditional gap between quantum and classical physics, offering a holistic vision of physical reality. The problem of multiple worlds in the context of the universal principle acquires a new dimension: if the principle of hierarchical self-organization is truly universal, then in other regions of the Universe with suitable conditions, complex hierarchically organized systems should also arise (Kasting, 2010). Cosmic evolution and humanity's place in it appear as a particular manifestation of universal laws of self-organization, where human consciousness and culture represent one possible path for realizing the principle of hierarchical complexity (Dick, 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethodological problems of hierarchical synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA key methodological problem is developing clear criteria for identifying manifestations of hierarchical synthesis. Operationalizable parameters are needed to distinguish genuine cases of hierarchical self-organization from simple aggregations or random coincidences (Bunge, 1998). Proposed criteria include: presence of emergent properties, temporary nature of functional wholeness, presence of critical transition points, and the ability to generate new organizational levels. The problem of falsifiability, formulated by Popper as a criterion of scientificity, presents particular difficulty for universal principles (Popper, 2002). To verify the principle of hierarchical self-organization, developing specific testable predictions that could be refuted by empirical data is necessary. One possible path is formulating specific hypotheses about the existence of certain types of transitional structures in various domains of reality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterdisciplinary approaches become a necessary condition for adequately researching the universal principle. Integrating methods from synergetics, complex systems theory, developmental biology, and social sciences allows identifying invariant organizational patterns at different levels of reality (Mitchell, 2009). However, such integration requires overcoming terminological and methodological barriers between disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe danger of unjustified holism and panpsychism represents a serious challenge for developing the principle of hierarchical self-organization. Critics rightly point to the risk of endowing any systems with properties of wholeness and goal-directedness (Nagel, 1979). To avoid these extremes, clear distinction between metaphorical and literal application of concepts of organization and purposiveness is necessary. The problem of demarcating principle manifestations requires developing clear boundaries of concept applicability. The question of which systems can be considered examples of hierarchical self-organization remains open (Dupré, 1993). Both excessive expansion and unjustified narrowing of the concept must be avoided. Relationship with other universal theories, such as evolution theory, synergetics, or systems theory, requires careful methodological analysis (Bertalanffy, 1968). The principle of hierarchical self-organization should not replace existing theories but can serve as a meta-theoretical basis for their integration. A key task is determining the specific contribution of the proposed principle to understanding universal mechanisms of complexity organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePractical and ethical implications of hierarchical synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHierarchical synthesis opens new perspectives for scientific research, offering an integral paradigm for studying complex systems. A new research program is forming, aimed at identifying general patterns of organization at different levels of reality—from molecular interactions to social structures (Mitchell, 2009). This program implies developing a special methodological apparatus capable of adequately describing processes of emergence, stability, and transformation of hierarchically organized systems. Interdisciplinary projects based on the principle of hierarchical self-organization allow overcoming traditional fragmentation of scientific knowledge. Research uniting specialists from various fields—from physics and biology to sociology and cognitive sciences—can identify invariant patterns of self-organization (Nowotny, Scott \u0026amp; Gibbons, 2001). Educational implications of the principle include the need to develop new academic courses oriented towards forming holistic thinking and understanding the unity of organizational laws in nature and society (Sterling, 2001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe principle of hierarchical self-organization implies rethinking attitudes towards nature through recognizing the value and wholeness of natural systems at all organizational levels. Understanding nature as a set of interconnected hierarchical systems forms the basis for a new ecological consciousness (Leopold, 1949). Social responsibility in cooperative systems acquires particular significance in the context of acknowledging the interdependence of all elements in complex social structures. Ecological ethics based on the principle of hierarchical self-organization emphasizes the necessity of preserving not only individual species but also entire ecosystems as functional units of the biosphere (Naess, 1989). This approach implies humanity's responsibility for maintaining equilibrium in global systems, considering humanity's special role as a being capable of consciously influencing self-organization processes on a planetary scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch prospects for hierarchical synthesis are associated with developing quantitative models allowing prediction of the emergence and dynamics of complex systems (Holland, 2014). Of particular interest is studying critical transition points between organizational levels and factors determining the stability of emerging structures. Possible technological applications of the principle include developing adaptive control systems, bio-inspired materials, and methods for regulating complex networks (Ball, 2018). Philosophical horizons opened by the principle are associated with rethinking humanity's place in the universal hierarchy of self-organizing systems and developing a new anthropology overcoming traditional divisions (Jonas, 1984).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe conducted research demonstrates that hierarchical synthesis represents a fundamental regularity of complexity organization, manifesting at all levels of reality\u0026mdash;from quantum systems to sociocultural structures. Analysis of main propositions allows asserting that recursive cooperation of autonomous elements, emergence of emergent properties, temporality of functional wholes, and presence of critical transition points form a system of interconnected characteristics determining the dynamics of complex systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn important result is substantiating the fractal nature of this principle, confirming its universality and scale invariance. For modern philosophy, this principle has transformative significance, offering a path to overcoming traditional oppositions and creating a holistic doctrine of being. It allows rethinking the part-whole relationship, overcoming the divide between natural and human sciences, and developing new approaches to the problem of consciousness and culture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther research prospects are associated with developing quantitative models of hierarchical self-organization, experimental study of critical transition points between organizational levels, and applying the principle to solving practical problems in ecology, medicine, and social management. Studying mechanisms of transcending system limits\u0026mdash;the ability to generate new autonomous organizational levels\u0026mdash;acquires particular importance. In conclusion, the necessity of interdisciplinary interaction for further developing the concept should be emphasized. Physicists and biologists, sociologists and philosophers, ecologists and artificial intelligence specialists\u0026mdash;all possess unique experience in studying various manifestations of hierarchical self-organization. Only by combining efforts can the scientific community reveal the full potential of hierarchical synthesis as a foundation for creating an integral worldview.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFINDINGS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The universal nature of the principle of hierarchical self-organization, manifesting at all levels of material organization\u0026mdash;from quantum systems to social structures, has been established. The unity of cooperation and integration mechanisms confirms the fundamental nature of this principle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The recursive nature of cooperative processes has been identified, whereby autonomous elements, forming functional wholes, themselves become elements of subsequent organizational levels. This pattern demonstrates scale invariance and fractal properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The key role of emergent properties as qualitatively new characteristics arising at each integration level and irreducible to properties of constituent elements has been substantiated. Emergence is a universal attribute of hierarchical self-organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The significance of temporality and processuality as fundamental attributes of self-organizing systems has been established. Dynamic equilibrium between integration and disintegration processes determines the temporal frameworks of functional wholes\u0026apos; existence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The critical role of bifurcation points in transitions between organizational levels has been determined. The nonlinear nature of these transitions and their sensitivity to small influences testify to the universality of qualitative transformation mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The ability of complex systems for transcendence\u0026mdash;generating new autonomous organizational levels overcoming limitations of original elements\u0026mdash;has been proven. This mechanism ensures the cumulative nature of complexity evolution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;An integral theoretical basis has been developed, allowing overcoming traditional dualisms in understanding relationships between different levels of material organization. The proposed approach creates a foundation for interdisciplinary knowledge synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe obtained results open prospects for developing a unified theory of complexity and have fundamental significance for rethinking humanity\u0026apos;s place in the universal hierarchy of self-organizing systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., \u0026amp; Walter, P. (2014). \u003cem\u003eMolecular biology of the cell\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). Garland Science.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAristotle. (2019). \u003cem\u003eMetaphysics\u003c/em\u003e (A. V. Kubitsky, Trans.; M. I. Itkin, Ed.). Academicheskii Proekt. (Original work published ca. 330 BCE).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAtkins, P., \u0026amp; Friedman, R. (2010). \u003cem\u003eMolecular quantum mechanics\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBall, P. (2020). \u003cem\u003eBeyond weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different\u003c/em\u003e. The University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrow, J. D., \u0026amp; Tipler, F. J. (1986). \u003cem\u003eThe anthropic cosmological principle\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBauer, M., Goyal, A., Goyal, S., Reddy, G., Chakrabarti, S., Desai, M. M., Gilpin, W., Grilli, J., Husain, K., Jain, S., Jolly, M. K., Kawaguchi, K., Koseska, A., Lin, M., Narlikar, L., Pigolotti, S., Raju, A., Shrinivas, K., Siddharthan, R., \u0026hellip; Vaikuntanathan, S. (2025). \u003cem\u003eUnifying theories in high-dimensional biology: Approaches, challenges and opportunities\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint submitted to arXiv]. arXiv.\u0026nbsp;\u003ccode\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.10111\u003c/code\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBertalanffy, L. von. (1968). \u003cem\u003eGeneral system theory: Foundations, development, applications\u003c/em\u003e. George Braziller.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBohr, N. (1958). \u003cem\u003eAtomic physics and human knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBourdieu, P. (1990). \u003cem\u003eThe logic of practice\u003c/em\u003e (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBunge, M. (1998). \u003cem\u003ePhilosophy of science: Volume 1, From problem to theory\u003c/em\u003e (Rev. ed.). Transaction Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBunge, M. (2003). \u003cem\u003eEmergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. University of Toronto Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurton, G. J., \u0026amp; Fowden, A. L. (2015). The placenta: A multifaceted, transient organ. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 370(1663), 20140066.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCapra, F. (2003). \u003cem\u003eThe hidden connections: A science for sustainable living\u003c/em\u003e. Anchor Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClark, A. (2008). \u003cem\u003eSupersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClayton, P., \u0026amp; Davies, P. (Eds.). (2006). \u003cem\u003eThe re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypothesis from science to religion\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCross, J. C., Baczyk, D., Dobric, N., Hemberger, M., Hughes, M., Simmons, D. G., Yamamoto, H., \u0026amp; Kingdom, J. C. P. (2003). Genes, development and evolution of the placenta. \u003cem\u003ePlacenta\u003c/em\u003e, 24(2\u0026ndash;3), 123\u0026ndash;130.\u0026nbsp;10.1098/rstb.2014.0066\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeacon, T. W. (1997). \u003cem\u003eThe symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain\u003c/em\u003e. W.W. Norton \u0026amp; Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Duve, C. (1995). \u003cem\u003eVital dust: Life as a cosmic imperative\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Duve, C. (2005). \u003cem\u003eSingularities: Landmarks on the pathways of life\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeeming, D. C. (Ed.). (2004). \u003cem\u003eReptilian incubation: Environment, evolution and behaviour\u003c/em\u003e. Nottingham University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDick, S. J. (1996). \u003cem\u003eThe biological universe: The twentieth-century extraterrestrial life debate and the limits of science\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDupr\u0026eacute;, J. (1993). \u003cem\u003eThe disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEpstein, I. R., \u0026amp; Pojman, J. A. (1998). \u003cem\u003eAn introduction to nonlinear chemical dynamics: Oscillations, waves, patterns, and chaos\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFuchs, T. (2018). \u003cem\u003eEcology of the brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGadamer, H.-G. (2004). \u003cem\u003eTruth and method\u003c/em\u003e (J. Weinsheimer \u0026amp; D. G. Marshall, Trans.; 2nd rev. ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGiddens, A. (19amer84). \u003cem\u003eThe constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration\u003c/em\u003e. University of California Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGilbert, S. F. (2016). \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental biology\u003c/em\u003e (11th ed.). Sinauer Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGilbert, S. F., Sapp, J., \u0026amp; Tauber, A. I. (2012). A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals. \u003cem\u003eThe Quarterly Review of Biology\u003c/em\u003e, 87(4), 325\u0026ndash;341. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/668166\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaken, H. (1983). \u003cem\u003eSynergetics: An introduction. Nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. \u003cem\u003eThe American Economic Review\u003c/em\u003e, 35(4), 519\u0026ndash;530.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHendry, R. F. (2006). Is there downward causation in chemistry? In D. Baird, E. Scerri, \u0026amp; L. McIntyre (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePhilosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 173\u0026ndash;189). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHesse, M. B. (1966). \u003cem\u003eModels and analogies in science\u003c/em\u003e. University of Notre Dame Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolland, J. H. (2014). \u003cem\u003eComplexity: A very short introduction\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIlyenkov, E. V. (1997). \u003cem\u003eDialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v nauchno-teoreticheskom myshlenii\u003c/em\u003e [Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific-theoretical thinking]. ROSSPEN.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIngold, T. (2000). \u003cem\u003eThe perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJablonka, E., \u0026amp; Lamb, M. J. (2005). \u003cem\u003eEvolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life\u003c/em\u003e. The MIT Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJonas, H. (1984). \u003cem\u003eThe imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKasting, J. F. (2010). \u003cem\u003eHow to find a habitable planet\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKauffman, S. A. (1993). \u003cem\u003eThe origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKedrov, B. M. (1972). \u003cem\u003eO metode nauchnogo poznaniya\u003c/em\u003e [On the method of scientific cognition]. Nauka.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKopnin, P. V. (1973). \u003cem\u003eDialektika kak logika i teoriya poznaniya\u003c/em\u003e [Dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge]. Nauka.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKuhn, T. S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe structure of scientific revolutions\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLane, N. (2015). \u003cem\u003eThe vital question: Energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life\u003c/em\u003e. W.W. Norton \u0026amp; Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLektorsky, V. A. (1980). \u003cem\u003eSubyekt, ob\u0026rsquo;yekt, poznanie\u003c/em\u003e [Subject, object, cognition]. Nauka.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLehn, J.-M. (1995). \u003cem\u003eSupramolecular chemistry: Concepts and perspectives\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley-VCH.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeibniz, G. W. (2014). \u003cem\u003eThe Monadology and other philosophical writings\u003c/em\u003e (R. Latta, Trans.). Martino Fine Books. (Original work published 1714).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLemeshchenko, V. V. [\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eЛемещенко\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eВ\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eВ\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.]\u003c/strong\u003e (2025). \u003cem\u003eTransient para-organismic level of structural organization as a mechanism of new trait formation in the animal hierarchy\u003c/em\u003e [Препринт, на русском языке: \u0026quot;Транзиторный параорганизменный уровень структурной организации как механизм формирования новых признаков в иерархии животного мира\u0026quot;].\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3113891\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeopold, A. (1949). \u003cem\u003eA sand county almanac and sketches here and there\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLevin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. \u003cem\u003eEcosystems\u003c/em\u003e, 1(5), 431\u0026ndash;436.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLissauer, J. J., \u0026amp; de Pater, I. (2019). \u003cem\u003eFundamental planetary science: Physics, chemistry and habitability\u003c/em\u003e (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLotman, Y. M. (1990). \u003cem\u003eUniverse of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture\u003c/em\u003e (A. Shukman, Trans.). I.B. Tauris.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMargulis, L. (1993). \u003cem\u003eSymbiosis in cell evolution: Microbial communities in the Archean and Proterozoic eons\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). W. H. Freeman.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMead, G. H. (2015). \u003cem\u003eMind, self, and society: The definitive edition\u003c/em\u003e (C. W. Morris, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMedzhitov, R. (2021). The spectrum of inflammatory responses. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 374(6571), 1070\u0026ndash;1075. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.abi5200\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMerkulov, I. P. (1999). \u003cem\u003eKognitivnaya evolyutsiya\u003c/em\u003e [Cognitive evolution]. ROSSPEN.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisteli, T. (2020). The self-organizing genome: Principles of genome architecture and function. \u003cem\u003eCell\u003c/em\u003e, 183(1), 28\u0026ndash;45. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.014\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMitchell, M. (2009). \u003cem\u003eComplexity: A guided tour\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMitchell, S. D. (2009). \u003cem\u003eUnsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy\u003c/em\u003e. The University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., Petersen, S., Beattie, C., Sadik, A., Antonoglou, I., King, H., Kumaran, D., Wierstra, D., Legg, S., \u0026amp; Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 518(7540), 529\u0026ndash;533. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature14236\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., \u0026amp; White, S. D. M. (2010). \u003cem\u003eGalaxy formation and evolution\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoffett, A., \u0026amp; Colucci, F. (2014). Uterine NK cells: Active regulators at the maternal-fetal interface. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Clinical Investigation\u003c/em\u003e, 124(5), 1872\u0026ndash;1879.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Mor, G., \u0026amp; Cardenas, I. (2010). The immune system in pregnancy: A unique complexity. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Reproductive Immunology\u003c/em\u003e, 63(6), 425\u0026ndash;433.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNaess, A. (1989). \u003cem\u003eEcology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy\u003c/em\u003e (D. Rothenberg, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNagel, E. (1979). \u003cem\u003eThe structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation\u003c/em\u003e. Hackett Publishing Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNorth, D. C. (2005). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding the process of economic change\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNowotny, H., Scott, P., \u0026amp; Gibbons, M. (2001). \u003cem\u003eRe-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty\u003c/em\u003e. Polity Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePackard, M. J., \u0026amp; Seymour, R. S. (1997). Evolution of the amniote egg. In S. S. Sumida \u0026amp; K. L. M. Martin (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eAmniote origins: Completing the transition to land\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 265\u0026ndash;290). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeebles, P. J. E. (2020). \u003cem\u003eCosmology\u0026rsquo;s century: An inside history of our modern understanding of the universe\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePopper, K. R. (2002). \u003cem\u003eConjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2nd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrigogine, I., \u0026amp; Stengers, I. (1984). \u003cem\u003eOrder out of chaos: Man\u0026rsquo;s new dialogue with nature\u003c/em\u003e. Bantam Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRees, M. (1999). \u003cem\u003eJust six numbers: The deep forces that shape the universe\u003c/em\u003e. Weidenfeld \u0026amp; Nicolson.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSadovsky, V. N. (1974). \u003cem\u003eOsnovaniya obshchey teorii system\u003c/em\u003e [Foundations of general systems theory]. Nauka.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSender, R., Fuchs, S., \u0026amp; Milo, R. (2016). Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. \u003cem\u003ePLOS Biology\u003c/em\u003e, 14(8), e1002533.\u0026nbsp;doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sterling, S. (2001). \u003cem\u003eSustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change\u003c/em\u003e. Green Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompson, E. (2007). \u003cem\u003eMind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind\u003c/em\u003e. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurco, M. Y., Gardner, L., Kay, R. G., Hamilton, R. S., Prater, M., Hollinshead, M. S., McWhinnie, A., Esposito, L., Fernando, R., Skelton, H., Reimann, F., Gribble, F. M., Sharkey, A., Marsh, S. G. E., O\u0026rsquo;Rahilly, S., Hemberger, M., Burton, G. J., \u0026amp; Moffett, A. (2018). Trophoblast organoids as a model for maternal\u0026ndash;fetal interactions during human placentation. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 564(7735), 263\u0026ndash;267.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVernadsky, V. I. (1997). \u003cem\u003eThe biosphere\u003c/em\u003e (D. B. Langmuir, Trans.). Copernicus. (Original work published 1926).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVernadsky, V. I. (1991). \u003cem\u003eNauchnaya mysl\u0026apos; kak planetnoe yavlenie\u003c/em\u003e [Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon] (A. L. Yanshin, Ed.). Nauka.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1978). \u003cem\u003eMind in society: The development of higher psychological processes\u003c/em\u003e (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, \u0026amp; E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhitehead, A. N. (1967). \u003cem\u003eScience and the modern world\u003c/em\u003e. Free Press. (Original work published 1925).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhitehead, A. N. (1978). \u003cem\u003eProcess and reality: An essay in cosmology\u003c/em\u003e (D. R. Griffin \u0026amp; D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). Free Press. (Original work published 1929).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhitesides, G. M., \u0026amp; Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at all scales. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 295(5564), 2418\u0026ndash;2421.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilczek, F. (2021). \u003cem\u003eFundamentals: Ten keys to reality\u003c/em\u003e. Penguin Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilson, E. O. (1998). \u003cem\u003eConsilience: The unity of knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. Alfred A. Knopf.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilson, E. O. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe social conquest of earth\u003c/em\u003e. Liveright Publishing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"philosophy of science, meta-theory, interdisciplinarity, hierarchical synthesis, transient meta-level of structural organization, fractal paradigm of cooperation, complex systems","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis interdisciplinary study constructs a bridge between the philosophy of science, theoretical biology, complex systems theory, and cosmology. It proposes a meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation within the structures of the material world. Complexity in the universe emerges through recursive acts of cooperation among autonomous elements, forming temporary wholes with emergent properties, which in turn become elements for the next cycle of cooperation. The article describes a fundamental pattern of the emergence of complexity via the cooperation of autonomous elements, resulting in temporary functional wholes possessing emergent properties. The meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis inherits and develops ideas from Bertalanffy's systems theory, Haken's synergetics, and Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures. The emergence of complexity in the material world represents a universal ontological principle manifesting across all levels of material organization\u0026mdash;from molecular interactions and cellular processes to social structures and cosmological systems. The idea of hierarchical synthesis offers a new conceptual language for describing the dynamic hierarchy of complex systems and overcoming the traditional divide between the natural sciences and humanities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A meta-theory of hierarchical synthesis as a fractal paradigm of cooperation: the recursive transit of complexity through transitional meta-levels","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-05 05:34:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8425906/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ac64420c-5c01-45c3-9177-9c58e0591241","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60074192,"name":"Developmental Biology"},{"id":60074193,"name":"Evolutionary Biology"},{"id":60074194,"name":"Animal Science"},{"id":60074195,"name":"General Cell Biology \u0026 Physiology"},{"id":60074196,"name":"Ecological Modeling"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-05T05:34:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-05 05:34:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8425906","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8425906","identity":"rs-8425906","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}