molecules with completely different structure, as well as different electronic
structure. Such cause-effect sequence is one-directional, i.e. the structure on the
lower level of complexity always causes exactly defined appearance (say, colour)
on the higher complexity level. On the other hand, the emergent property on the
higher level (the blue-violet colour) is not dependent on the particular molecule, it
can appear from quite different causes. Painters or other visual artists are interested
primarily for the colour which they use on the artistic level of complexity, and not
for the type of molecules or elemental particles that are behind this colour. The
opposite causal sequence is not possible: blue-violet colour of a substance cannot be
the cause of any electronic structure of the molecule!
Evolutional biologists are familiar with the similar problem that provoked the
division on Lamarckists and Darwinists. While Lamarcksists maintained that the
adaptations gained during the life of the individual living being cause the change
and evolution of its genotype, Darwinists asserted that the evolution is possible only
by causal bottom-up direction, i.e. from genotype to phenotype, and not vice versa.
Genotype, the simpler complexity level, shapes the corresponding phenotype that
belong to the higher complexity level.
Concepts, hypotheses, theories, and laws as the basis of the scientific methodology represent the epistemology of particular scientific discipline (epirsηlη
means knowledge) [1]. Every field of science consists from ontology component,
i.e. the essence or the being of their subject, and the epistemology component,
which serves to outline representations and explanations of the nature of the subjects. Authentic science, like chemistry or biology, is holistic not because their
phenomena are independent on the phenomena of more elemental science, but
because it produces autonomous laws and theories that are not reducible on the
laws and theories of the discipline that deals with the less complex subjects. In
summary, if we talk about the holism-reductionism dilemma in sciences, the reductionism is valid only in the ontology sense. Holistic structure emerges from the
epistemology component of science, which is a core of the authenticity of scientific
discipline.
Let me now focus on the question about the rational, i.e., possible physical
interpretation of the previously mentioned classification based on the complexity.
Arranging of complexity of the nature in levels [6] is evidently a sort of general
lawfulness that could be explained within the particular structural science, for
instance, within the theory of systems. In the search of the above-mentioned lawfulness it would be reasonable to ask the questions such as: is there a clearly defined
physical parameter characteristic for the corresponding complexity level, or, is it
possible that complexity can grow ad infinitum, or, how sharp is the borderline
between complexity levels? Complexity levels as hierarchy of nature were proposed
by many authors by using various criteria. Emmeche et al. have proposed four
levels: physical, biological, psychological, and sociological [12]. However, the
unambiguous criterion for the arrangement of complexity in levels must be based
on the particular physical parameter, which has been generally used in the
1 Chemistry and Philosophy of Science
5
structure. Such cause-effect sequence is one-directional, i.e. the structure on the
lower level of complexity always causes exactly defined appearance (say, colour)
on the higher complexity level. On the other hand, the emergent property on the
higher level (the blue-violet colour) is not dependent on the particular molecule, it
can appear from quite different causes. Painters or other visual artists are interested
primarily for the colour which they use on the artistic level of complexity, and not
for the type of molecules or elemental particles that are behind this colour. The
opposite causal sequence is not possible: blue-violet colour of a substance cannot be
the cause of any electronic structure of the molecule!
Evolutional biologists are familiar with the similar problem that provoked the
division on Lamarckists and Darwinists. While Lamarcksists maintained that the
adaptations gained during the life of the individual living being cause the change
and evolution of its genotype, Darwinists asserted that the evolution is possible only
by causal bottom-up direction, i.e. from genotype to phenotype, and not vice versa.
Genotype, the simpler complexity level, shapes the corresponding phenotype that
belong to the higher complexity level.
Concepts, hypotheses, theories, and laws as the basis of the scientific methodology represent the epistemology of particular scientific discipline (epirsηlη
means knowledge) [1]. Every field of science consists from ontology component,
i.e. the essence or the being of their subject, and the epistemology component,
which serves to outline representations and explanations of the nature of the subjects. Authentic science, like chemistry or biology, is holistic not because their
phenomena are independent on the phenomena of more elemental science, but
because it produces autonomous laws and theories that are not reducible on the
laws and theories of the discipline that deals with the less complex subjects. In
summary, if we talk about the holism-reductionism dilemma in sciences, the reductionism is valid only in the ontology sense. Holistic structure emerges from the
epistemology component of science, which is a core of the authenticity of scientific
discipline.
Let me now focus on the question about the rational, i.e., possible physical
interpretation of the previously mentioned classification based on the complexity.
Arranging of complexity of the nature in levels [6] is evidently a sort of general
lawfulness that could be explained within the particular structural science, for
instance, within the theory of systems. In the search of the above-mentioned lawfulness it would be reasonable to ask the questions such as: is there a clearly defined
physical parameter characteristic for the corresponding complexity level, or, is it
possible that complexity can grow ad infinitum, or, how sharp is the borderline
between complexity levels? Complexity levels as hierarchy of nature were proposed
by many authors by using various criteria. Emmeche et al. have proposed four
levels: physical, biological, psychological, and sociological [12]. However, the
unambiguous criterion for the arrangement of complexity in levels must be based
on the particular physical parameter, which has been generally used in the
1 Chemistry and Philosophy of Science
5