1996 – correspondent member to the International Academy of Environment Reconstruction (Moscow);
1998 – member to the International Academy of Environment Reconstruction (Moscow);
2007 – ‘order of Peter the Great’
Published thesis, articles - 4 articles and upcoming monographs:
1992 – “Modeling of Hierarchic Systems” by Ì. Pankevych;
1994 – “Constitution of Ukraine” by Ì. Pankevych;
2002. – “Miracle of Healing through Purification“ by Ì. Ì. Pankevych, P. Pankevych:
2005 – “Healing – Experience and Wisdom through Ages” by Ì. Pankevych, P. Pankevych.
The monograph “Synthesis and Analyses of Anatomy Systems”, found on this web-site, consists of three chapters:
Chapter 1: “Algorithm Hierarchy of National Building”.
Chapter 2: “Hierarchy Anatomy of a Human Body”.
Chapter 3: “Theory on Hierarchic Systems Modeling”.
The annotation to the Chapter 1 is also found there: «Algorithm Hierarchy of the Government Buiding”.
Save annotation
Brief annotation
The scientific division of theories onto simple and complex is based on the scientists’ understanding of the inner workings of the system. Everybody understands simple theories, while nobody perfectly understands complex ones. The reason for the latter lies in the absence of a robust and unambiguous methodology for the analysis of compex theories. The analogy method – which is widely used to study complex theories – is ineffective and cannot provide the solutions to the relevant problems.
Clearly, the functioning of complex systems, which develop in space and time as one whole, can be represented as a collection of interrelated processes. However, the current science does not contain rules that would help identify how these interrelations formed, how they function, and how the processes at different levels of hierarchy relate. Systems analysis, which scientists use to study complex systems, is a dead-end branch of science. The existing science problems are impossible to solve using methodologies that caused these problems in the first place. This is the only critique of the existing methodology. Henceforth, we avoid referencing science authorities for the purpose of supporting or contradicting an argument. The exposition is designed to be autonomous without any references to basic monographs. There will be no single reference to the differences in current views on the modeling and analysis of complex systems. This will simplify the exposition and comprehension of the subject.
Everyone understands that the world is organized into a hierarchy: dead matter, live matter, followed by social systems. Each of those has multiple levels and sublevels with a multitude of direct and reciprocal connections over horizontal elements at the same level, as well as between parent and subsidiary sublevels. All is complex. The task of trying to set up connections between dead matter, live matter, and social systems looks even more complex. These connections exist, though, because live matter originated from dead matter and is constantly surrounded by it. Biological creatures did not become a confined system in relation to the forces of dead matter. Social systems were developed on the biological bases of a human. These biological bases not only created social systems (a tribe, a country, a union of countries, etc), but also serve as a foundation for their improvement.
So, what horizontal or vertical relations exist between the systems of dead matter, live matter, and social systems? How many are there? The number and these relations remain unknown. But they exist. And it is impossible to understand the fullness of the cycle in social systems, live and dead matter without apprehending these relations. The methodology of studying complex systems is to blame. A similar situation developed when scientists used Latin numerals to do mathematical calculations. Only a Rome-educated scientist could multiply 5-digit numbers. Replacing Roman numerals with Arabic eliminated the problem of mathematical calculations and brought it down to the level of an elementary school student. A change of methodology – of the tool of the learning – occurred.
We propose a much simpler and more practical (as compared to the existing) methodology of the examination of complex systems. This work is devoted to the search for generalization rules and regularities that are typical of various classes of systems, which develop in space and time as one whole. This work is an outcome of thirty years of thought on the analysis of complex systems by their representation as hierarchy models. This exact vision of complex systems has a potential to set up a foundation for the creation of a unified theory of systems of various complexity, including dynamic systems.
To start off, let us define the terms used throughout the text. An autonomy is a system that originates, develops and functions as one whole across space and time. A model reflects the internal structure of the autonomy in the form of elements with existing interrelations among them and interrelations with other systems. A hierarchy model defines the formation order of the autonomy, its levels and the interrelations across and within the sublevels, as well as the autonomy’s relations with other systems. Let us present the main points of the proposed methodology of the analysis of complex systems (methodology RBZ).
We propose three regularities that are typical of all hierarchy-established autonomies.
The first regularity. A simple (non-hierarchy) autonomy is transformed into a hierarchy one by dividing its elements and forming a subsidiary sublevel. Every subsidiary sublevel of such an autonomy is formed to ensure the structural integrity and the functioning of the parent level. Every new generation of sublevels is subsidiary relative to the level they formed from, and every new generation ensures the retention of integrity and functioning of the parent level. In a model with five hierarchy sublevels, the fifth level has been formed to unsure the existence of the fourth level, the fourth – of the third, the third – of the second, and the second – of the first sublevel.
This simple regularity of the autonomous system’s formation transforms the learning of the model of hierarchy structure of such autonomies as the society, the property in the society, the laws of the society, etc. This regularity makes an even bigger change in the understanding of such an autonomy as the human organism.
This regularity surprises experts that explore the creation of life on Earth and the evolution of live matter most of all. If the proposed regularity is true, the existing transformations theories of aminoacids into protoprotein into protein into single-cell-organisms into multi-cell-organisms into ape and into human seem anecdotal. The evolution preserves the foundation and the basic process that created life; the sublevels that perish and modernize are the ones that appeared later in time. For an autonomy of five hierarchy sublevels that evolves in subsequent generations, the initial changes happen at the fifth level, followed by level four, and so on. The older the autonomy’s sublevel, the lower the degree of its evolutionary changes.
Let us examine the above regularity in relation to a human organism. To understand the hierarchy structure of its subsystems, we have to discover the initial simple system and trace the order of new levels’ formation. From this perspective, the evolutionary changes in the “organism” autonomy will be treated as a way to preserve the most ancient sublevel, which was used to create a human organism.
The fusion of two sex cells creates a new organism. The division of a fertilized egg cell occurs once a day over the first seven days. On day seven, only one of the 128 cells is used to create a new organism. This fact is known since the invention of a microscope. However, the fact has not been analyzed from the viewpoint that the inter-cell self-regulation system has been already forming during the first seven days. This self-regulation system ensures intra-abdominal development of the embryo and it is formed within the embryo. This system is functioning during the whole life of a human. The hierarchy self-regulatory algorithm created during the first seven days of human life is a roadmap of medical science development in the future. And the above regularity is clearly traced in this algorithm.
The second regularity of the proposed RBZ methodology of the analysis of an autonomy is that imbalance inside a hierarchy model spreads from the newer levels to the more ancient ones, and balancing occurs in reverse order, from ancient levels to new ones.
The regularity allows to understand the functioning of complex systems. Also, this regularity is the first one to be discovered while attempting to organize the hierarchy of a human organism by following its formation during the first days. It has been immediately utilized in everyday medical practice. It became clear that the disease development process is a set order of the disturbance of sublevels of the hierarchy model of a human from younger levels to ancient ones, and that of healing – the reverse. The ordering of several existing diseases into a hierarchy model allowed to identify the primary illness, the one to be treated. The others would be automatically cured. This regularity allowed to favor the hierarchy modeling of human organism malfunctions over the existing system of diagnosis. It came to light that tens of thousands of symptoms, syndromes, syndromocomplexes, and diagnoses should be sorted on certain levels of the hierarchy model “organism”. This would simplify the medical science, make it easier to understand, and would improve practical results.
One can easily transpose these regularities onto the “country” autonomy. The applicability of these regularities to the “country” autonomy is fostered by the observations of the development of modern young democracies. One can clearly see the hierarchy order of this autonomy’s formation and functioning via the disturbance from younger levels to ancient ones and balancing the reverse way. The “healing” of the “country” autonomy is identical to the healing of the “organism” autonomy.
Similarly to the first two, the third regularity is typical of all hierarchy models and is best presented simplified.
The essence of the third regularity comes down to the following. Every autonomy that develops in space and time as one whole, can follow two interrelated development paths, perspective, which leads to the division of the autonomy or its sublevels, and retrospective, which leads the autonomy to its formation level. The perspective path of the “organism” autonomy’s development is the realization of hereditary information that has been transmitted by ancestors via hierarchy self-regulation algorithm. The retrospective path of the “organism” autonomy’s development is the formation of hereditary information for the future descendants, which ends at the formation of sex cells.
We are used to a deep anti-philosophic view of the cell division issue. The cell division can be regulated and unregulated. The unregulated human organism cell division remains unexplored. The bonds on the solution of the problem of unregulated division of a cancer-forming cell remain outstanding. Genetics has a present need for a hierarchy classification of genes, and hierarchy algorithm of the realization of communicated information and the synthesis of hereditary one. Scientists will never reach an ultimate conclusion as to the reasons of the transformation of a normal cell into a cancer-forming one unless they understand the hierarchy of cell administration, the model of self-regulation among the organs, and the hierarchy order of genes in a human organism.
1 | 2