The hierarchy of the nature objects

With the creation of the 4D model of the aether [1], it became possible to settle some order among the nature objects. Certainly, there is not any confidence in the existence of that order really in nature because the nature itself is in some disordered state and is cognizable up to some limit which can be accessed by the human now. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the ontology it is quite interesting task to try to establish any order and even its partial decision might be useful in the future due to the principles of the building of this order which satisfy some reasonable criterions.
At the first place the completeness may be set as the criterion. It means here that in the frame of our conceptions there is no any objects beyond the scheme of the ordering proposed. By the other words, all must contain in the scheme. Any object must have its place in the scheme. A clause is to make here. There are anything as the object in the arbitrary scheme. The belonging to the proposed model will be the restriction hereafter. Until all properties of the model are discovered the scheme, of cause, can not be complete. But the aim of the paper is the description of the model and its properties in essence although one can't exclude a possible methodical value of the similar scheme for some different tasks beyond the aether model.
The other criterion may be the equivalency of the objects from the same group. It would be difficult to settle relations between objects of different ranks even under satisfaction of the first criterion. Such relations may evolve, for example, when one object compose from the other.
One comment about the terms. It stands not the object itself for the object in the scheme, but surely the notion about the object, his representation. The scheme is abstract object existing only in a head, could being displayed on the paper etc. The other names for it are system, classification, hierarchy or even world view.
In the paper it is undertaken an endeavor to use a dichotomy splitting of notions as such criterion. The parent notion in it divides in two child notions with equal capacity. The first criterion will be satisfied too. The completeness will be ensured if to take the most general object of the nature as an initial one. Here it is the model itself or, more correctly, what it is to represent.
Thus the scheme of the objects of the nature ordering is the binary tree having strict hierarchical building and allowing to establish the classification of representation of these objects.
For the beginning it is need to designate an initial object at the very lower level, at the root of the tree. It may be called the Essence. Hereafter the objects of the hierarchy will be denoted from the capital letter. The determination of the Essence is very simple. It is what is exist in the frame of the model proposed. There is nothing exist except the Essence. That definition fulfils the demand of the first criterion by itself.
Some notice needs here. As the model is pretended to the role of the physical description of all essence, it is stay aside the mathematical, logical, semantic, grammatical and other notions being nonphysical in their base. These notions may be used for the identification the nature of the model objects. Therefore, for example, on the question like "Where is the Essence?" one may give the following answer referring to the mathematics: "The Essence is in the space".
It is supposed here that the space is the notion aside the scheme frames and it doesn't need to be defined. What the space is used? It is that what is convenient to describe the objects considered, namely four-dimensional Euclidian one. The spaces with fewer dimensions are appeared to be not sufficient for the description of the all Essence. To use five and more dimensions don't make any sense until the possibilities of the four-dimensional space are not exhausted. The euclidiancy of the space was choosing for simplicity. Of cause, from the point of view of mathematics there are infinite number of such spaces with such properties. It is supposed here that the Essence which we all are belong to is exactly in "our" space and it is impossible for us to know something about other such spaces even if any of them really exist. And we can judge about "our" four-dimensional space only indirectly by the results of the coincidence of the physical experiments and the model.
Thus the Essence is something single existing in 4D-space with Euclidian metrics. Further one need to specify this notion, i.e. to get up on the nest level in the hierarchy.
New additional criterion is necessary to divide the notion of the Essence into two new composing notions. One may simply divide the Essence asunder and fulfill two first criterions, but it does not create any new thing. Therefore the criterion to produce really new notions is needed. It may be such one that indicates on the mode of existence of the Essence. It is the ability to move. As a matter of fact, the static case is not interesting and the ability mentioned above is introduced by the notion of time. The time is thought to be the notion outside the scheme. It is a parameter to describe the movement. The immediate question arisen is: The movement of what? Without fail it can not be the movement of the Essence because the latter exists in some material form. Therefore one may put down the following formula exposing the sense above-mentioned:

Essence = Matter (Movement)
The subordination in the form of function dependency is stressed here. There is no any Movement without Matter. The Movement is an attribute of the Matter. The Essence exists in the form of the Matter but the latter is only the part of the former because there is the Movement of the Matter. Therefore the Movement is non-separable part of the Essence as well but it is its ideal part.
At this point one may notice the similarity of the proposed classification with that appeared in the ancient China. The representation of Te in the form of Yang and Yin and the learning about Tao given in Tao Te Ching is keeping in mind here, of cause, throwing into the discard the mythological rubbish.
It is possible the alternate wording formally:

Essence = Movement (Matter).
It is idealistic point of view and it don't consider here.
There is need again the division criterion to arise at the next level. So one may ask oneself: Does the Matter fill all the space? If the answer is no, then the next questions about the spreading of the Matter in the space, about its density, what it is about at all and so on. There are many qualifications - up to infinity. Therefore it is need to answer by order. The case of the infinite Matter filling all the space is less interesting and it may be threw away or considered as an approximation and an abstraction. Then it is ought to confess that the Matter is situated compactly, i.e. it takes some area of the space. The area has a border that is three-dimensional surface, or hypersurface. So one may speak about the interior part of the Matter and about the exterior part situated on the border. Then the belonging to the border may serve as the division criterion because the border plays a significant role in the object hierarchy although it can not exist without the neighboring object. So the Matter might be displayed as

Matter = Aether + World,
where the content of the region occupied by Matter is named by the Aether and the border of the region is called the World. The sense of these naming which are conditional will be cleared in the following. It is supposed that the Aether is something like an ideal fluid and its border, a three-dimensional surface, can conduct the electro-magnetic waves, i.e. it is luminousferrous. Only this border is given us in perceptions and that is why it seems to us that we are in the three-dimensional space. The World is ought to be emphasized to be the Aether as well, but only its tiny part which is "on the view".
Under that mode of division as above the doubt about fulfillment of the second criterion may arise. Are the Aether and the World equal in their significance? The reference on the unity of the content and the form may use here. They are not to be opposed. They are in the oneness and they are important in the equal power.
Also it is necessity to clear up the meaning of the addition sign in the above statement. It is not the arithmetical addition, of cause, but symbolic one, where the order of the addends has a sense.
One may imagine the Movement in a similar way, in accordance with the belonging to the border. It splits into two movements, of the Aether and of the World. The first one is the characteristic of the inner changes of the Matter and is the source of the electromagnetism. The second one produces various reconstructions of the border, or, by other words, the outside changes of the Matter. Hence the following representation is arose

Movement = Field + Change.
The term of Change is chosen because the reconstruction of the border is supposed to go with the movement of the visible objects (in a broad meaning of the word, not only by eyes, but by various optical and similar devices).
It must be noted here that the Field is a more general characteristic then the Change and the World is a partial, marginal case of the Aether. Therefore the World may be represented as an attribute of the Aether and the Change as of the Field. As it will be shown below, the Change is originated due to the movement of the Aether, i.e. due to the Field. The World is known to be changeable, but it changes by the motion of the Aether.
The third level can get with a help of various methods depended on the division criterion. However, the criterion must inherit the properties of all previous criterions to be reconcilable with them. This may gain if to consider the second level objects in the form of the whole-single relation.
Really, it was shown [2] that the Aether may occupy not only one region of the space but a few, perhaps infinite, number of such regions. Thus the need occurs to denote these regions somehow. They may be called by Universe, because all objects in every region can move only in the range of its region, its Universe. From the other hand, the Aether being a material object itself consists from the some material particles which forms the 4D media. They may be get conventionally name of Aperions to distinguish they from fundamental particles. Thus

Aether = Apeiron + Universe.
Here the Apeiron is higher notion then th Universe. No Universe without Apeirons, but there may exist single Apeiron which might be called the smallest Universe. Therefore, the Aether is the Universes filled with Apeirons, or better to say, it is the Apeirons which united may create the Universes.
As for the World, there need to use the same criterion as for the Aether. Here the parts of the World are "visible" perturbations of the Aether being existed on the hypersurface of the Universe. The fundamental particles, resonances and waves may be referred to them. They distinguish from each other by various parameters, the time-life numbered with it. They are named the Particles. Separate particles forms atoms, molecules, materials and so on. We give the name of the Material to all such "visible in principle" objects. As a result we come to the statement

World = Particle + Material.
As above the Particles take higher position comparing with the Material in the hierarchy of the essences.
At that level the Movement of the Aether, or the Field, is to apply to the Aether constituents, to the Apeiron and to the Universe. Because the first of them is accessible only indirectly, it is agreeable to name it such enigmatic word like apeiron. We name it the Entelechia. It is a long time when the Movement of the Universe called the Evolution. The same term can be used here understanding the difference in the genesis of these objects. So

Field = Entelechia + Evolution.
One may say that the Entelechia is a cause of the Evolution.
The Movement of the World, or the Change, is the visible movement. So the movement of the Particle, though not always observable by simple methods, may consider as "visible in principle". In difference with the Entelechia it can be fixed in the form of tracks in the bubble chamber, as for expample. That Movement left the trace. The trace is from the objects of the World but of greater scale then the Particles itself. They can be studied by microscope or, by other words, fixed ideally. They may be referred to the Material class. I.e. the difference in the Movement of the Particle and of the Material is in their scales. The former is the microscopic change, the latter is the macroscopic one.

Change = Action + Replacement
The Action is more significant notion then the Replacement, for it is the Action as a Movement of the Particles cause the Replacement of the Material. But at the end the Field as the Movement of the Aether is responsible for all the forms of the Movement. It is shown with a help the following statement

Essence = Matter (Movement) =
Aether (Field) + World (Change) =
Apeiron (Entelechia) + Universe (Evolution) +
Particle (Action) + Material (Replacement) = ...
It is obvious that the scheme suggested may be continued. Beginning from some level the Self-organization, the Atom, the Ecosystem, the Life, the Human, the Self-conscience, the Science, the Progress and so on will appear. The number of such notions grows on 2ⁿ at the elevation on the n level and tend to infinity. But the aim of the science is exactly the achievement of the infinity. The proposed scheme is supposed to be useful in this endless and beneficial process.

[1] V. Skorobogatov. Some consequences of 4D-model of aether. http://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html. 2006.