Everything that is in nature has a single basis and must be understood from a unified position

Throughout the centuries, various theosophical theories have been replaced by natural-philosophical and modern physical concepts. And although now the understanding of the laws of hierarchy, preservation and cause-and-effect relationships differs significantly from what was understood before, these ideas have not lost their relevance even now. In one form or another, they form the basis of all attempts to develop the foundations of the theory of systems. And these attempts, despite the centuries-old history of the development of systems theory, continue to this day, because there is as yet no clear and unambiguous definition of what is a system, although everything that fills our world are systems. In addition to physical interactions in nature, there are other: biological, social, moral, mental, interaction of cultures, etc. Any living organism is an ordinary thermodynamic machine, very complex, perhaps the most complex of all known to us, but nevertheless a machine whose work based on the usual and well-known laws of thermodynamics.
"Thermodynamics is a very broad science, as it deals with all physical or chemical changes and transformations of bodies."
Love and hate are also quite objective phenomena of our world, but they do not fit into the framework of physical laws, although they are completely subject to the laws of hierarchy, preservation and cause-and-effect constraints.
All this means that we still know very little about our world, because not only have not we brought a single foundation to all interactions existing in nature, but even for all simple physical interactions. Nevertheless, everything that exists in nature has a single basis and must be understood from a unified standpoint. And it can be understood only with the help of system theory and system analysis. In other words, nature is one and orderly, it is dominated by law and natural order, nature is a system, and life is one of the manifestations of this system. And any living organism is a system, but not every system is a living organism. We realize this, but we can not always determine what is life in general.
"Life is a form of the existence of protein bodies" (K.Marks). But this is too narrow a definition of life. And not protein bodies can not be alive? Why should we deny vitality to other forms of life, not protein and based on other principles that may exist in other parts of our World and which, perhaps, are "more alive" us?
"Life is the self-maintenance, self-reproduction and self-development of large systems, consisting of elementary organic molecules, which occur as a result of metabolism within these molecules and between them, and simultaneously with the external environment, based on the cost of energy and information received from outside."