Saturday, February 09, 2013

Unification of Engels's Three "Laws" of Dialectics in the Seldonian 'Meta-Model' of 'The Dialectic of Nature'

Dear Readers,

PLEASE NOTE:  New content, as of 24 February 2013, was added to this Vignette, a part of which I have also reproduced below.

Below, I have posted excerpts from a vignette that I have just written for F.E.D., entitled --

Unification of Engels's Three "Laws" of Dialectics in the Seldonian 'Meta-Model' 
of 'The Dialectic of Nature'.

-- the full text of which can be reached via the following URLs --

The following four '*.jpg' images serve to summarize the content of this vignette --

Happy reading!




                                                             F.E.D. Vignette #10 --

Unification of Engelss Three Lawsof Dialectics   in the Seldonian Meta-Model of The Dialectic of Nature.

Authors Preface.  The purpose of F.E.D. Vignette #10 is to present the singular expression of Engels’s three “laws” of dialectics that arises in the Seldonian account of The Dialectic of Nature -- the dialectic of the maximal totality; of our cosmos as a whole.

A Note about the On-Line Availability of Definitions of F.E.D. Technical Terms.  Definitions of Encyclopedia Dialectica technical terms and ‘neologia’ are available on-line via the following URLs --

-- by clicking on the links associated with each such term, listed, alphabetically, on the web-pages linked above.

The Encyclopedia Dialectica [E.D.] special terms most fundamental to this vignette are indicated below, together with links to their E.D. definitions --

«arithmos» and «arithmoi»




‘‘‘Seldon Functions’’’

-- definitions resources which will be expanded as the F.E.D. Encyclopedia Project unfolds.

I.  Engelss Three Laws of Dialectics in His Own Words.

The storied scientist, J. B. S. Haldane, in his preface to the publication of Engels’s incomplete manuscripts, entitled Dialectics of Nature by their editors, notes that Engels, from at least 1871, “intended to write a great book to show [quoting Engels:  ]“that in nature the same dialectical laws of movement are carried out in the confusion of its countless changes, as also govern the apparent contingency of events in history.”  If this book had been written, it would have been of immense importance for the development of science.” [Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, International Publishers [NY:  1963], p. viii].

These Dialectics of Nature manuscripts were never quite finished for publication by Engels, but Engels did, in the short second chapter, entitled “Dialectics”, provide the following formulation of his threelawsof dialectics:

...It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted.  For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself.  And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:

    The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
    The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
    The law of the negation of the negation.

All three are developed by Hegel in his idealist fashion as mere laws of thought:  the first, in the first part of his Logic, in the Doctrine of Being;  the second fills the whole of the second and by far the most important part of his Logic, the Doctrine of Essence; finally the third figures as the fundamental law of the construction of the [M.D.:  Hegel’s] whole system. 

The mistake lies in the fact that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them. 

This is the source of the whole forced and often outrageous treatment; the universe, willy-nilly, is made out to be arranged in accordance with a system of thought which itself is only the product of a definite stage of evolution of human thought. 

If we turn the thing round, then everything becomes simple, and the dialectical laws that look so extremely mysterious in idealist philosophy at once become simple and clear as noonday.

Moreover, anyone who is even only slightly acquainted with his Hegel will be aware that in hundreds of passages Hegel is capable of giving the most striking individual illustrations from nature and history of the dialectical laws.

We are not concerned here with writing a handbook of dialectics, but only with showing that the dialectical laws are really laws of development of nature, and therefore valid also for theoretical natural science. 

Hence we cannot go into the inner interconnection of these laws with one another. [ibid., pp. 26-27].

We of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] are, however, concerned, in particular, with writing a handbook of dialectics, one which is tentatively slated to appear in 2014, under the primary authorship of F.E.D. Public Liaison Officer Aoristos Dyosphainthos.

We are also concerned, in general, with resuming and continuing the unfinished works of both Engels and Marx. 

We must also, therefore, “go into the inner interconnection of these laws with one another.”

This F.E.D. Vignette #10 presents a brief summary of their “inner interconnection” in their more concrete context of universal natural history as the history of the maximal dialectical totality.

Both Marx and Engels frequently criticized the “abstract” character of the natural sciences of their time, and, in particular, their abstractness in relation to the history of nature.  Engels’s account of the threelawsof dialectics, nonetheless, had to remain, precisely, abstracted from natural history, “suprahistorical” [Marx] in their formulation and presentation, because the natural science of Engels’s time had not yet penetrated with sufficient depth into the macrocosm, ‘mesocosm’, and microcosm of the present cosmological epoch, or into the reconstruction of those of past epochs of natural history, to provide a knowledge-base sufficient to support the unified formulation of The Historical Dialectic of Nature.  This fact may have contributed to the reasons owing to which Engels decided to give priority to other projects, and never completed either the Dialectics of Nature ms., or his intended greater work on dialectics.  But, beginning circa the 2nd half of the 20th century, that condition has begun to be remedied.  We take advantage of that growth in knowledge, subsequent to Engels’s lifetime, herein.

II.  Unitary Operation of the Three Laws of Dialectics in Cosmos-History,  Stated Narratively & In a Nutshell”.

1.  «Genos»:  Generic Narrative of the Unified Dialectical Meta-Dynamic of Natures Self-Revolutions.  The in-context operation of Engels’s first “law” of dialectics, the law of the transformation of quantitative change into qualitative change, as concretely occurring in the main sequence of the natural history of the cosmos, is driven by the ‘auto-catalytic’ character of the populations of individuals of each successive major kind of individuals, each represented by a distinct ‘‘‘ontological category’’’, that has arisen in the self-caused course of Nature’s ‘self-meta-evolution’.  

Individuals of each newest kind make more individuals of that kind, of their own kind; they self-reproduce, expandedly, and often at an accelerated rate, at least early-on in their ‘self-evolution’.  

They do so by converting ‘onto-mass’ of other, previously ‘self-meta-evolved’ kinds, into ‘onto-mass’ of their own kind.  

The ‘qualitative growth’ of the universe, and of the ontology of the universe, that such “quantitative growth”, such accelerated expanded self-reproduction, passes into, is not precipitated just by the growing quantity, the growing population-count, the growing number, of individuals of that newest ‘onto-type’. 

It is also a matter of the growing physical-spatial concentration of that mounting quantity of such individuals.

That rising ‘onto-density’, in the cores of that ‘onto-type’s’ nucleation-zones, where that concentration maximizes, bring individuals of that same newest ‘onto-type’ into intense interaction mainly with one another, no longer, at least not at the cores of those nucleation-zones, mainly with individuals of earlier ‘meta-evolved’ ‘onto-types’. 

Latent potentials of such interaction of similars are thus actualized to unprecedented degree.

From such unprecedented degrees of ‘‘‘self-interaction’’’ -- or of ‘‘‘intra-action’’’ -- within the populations of the newest ‘onto-type’, a next newest ‘onto-type’ irrupts, one constituted by an unprecedented new kind of individuals, qualitatively different from those of the old newest ‘onto-type’, and qualitatively different from those of all earlier ‘meta-evolved’ ‘onto-types’, representing, thus, a new quality of cosmological being, a new ‘onto-type’ -- unprecedented, new ontology.

Thus, quantitative change, change in the quantity and concentration/density of individuals of the earlier kind of ontology, mere quantitative growth, has abruptly given rise to a population of a new kind of individual, to qualitative change, to qualitative growth -- to ontological revolution; to yet another increment in the growth of the ontology of the cosmos.

Quantitativeevolution has passed into qualitative meta-evolution.

The dynamics of evolution -- quantitative expanded self-reproduction of individuals of a given, then-vanguard ‘onto-type’ -- has, via metafinite singularity, passed into the meta-dynamics of the «aufheben» birth of a new vanguard ‘onto-type’, from out of the very womb of its immediate predecessor ‘self-hybrid’ vanguard ‘onto-type’.  

And it has done so by way of the interpenetration of opposites -- not, in the case of this main sequence, historical dialectic of natural history, of ‘‘‘complementary opposites’’’, nor of annihilatory opposites, but of supplementary opposites [see F.E.D. Vignette #6, The Dialectic of Opposition, for background on this ‘ideo-taxonomy’ of the three «species», or kinds, of oppositeness:,F.E.D._Vignette_%236,The_Dialectic_of_Oppositions,first_posted_29NOV2012.pdf ].

The quality of oppositeness of the old vanguard ‘onto-type’, versus its successor, may not always be experientially and affectively accessible to its human observers, which is why F.E.D. calls 2nd terms in its ‘ideo-dialectical meta-models’ contra-thesisterms, whereas it calls 2nd terms in its ‘physi[c]o-dialectical meta-models’ meta-physisterms.

The formerly-latent, unmanifest potentials of the ‘‘‘self-interaction’’’ of the up-until-then newest ‘onto-type’ constitute an immanent other-ness’, an intra-duality’, or self-duality’, an internal-/self-opposition’, of that up-until-then newest ‘onto-type’, one which becomes ‘outered’, externally manifested, once the intensity of population ‘‘‘self-interaction’’’, or ‘intra-action’, breaches the threshold whereafter the next newest ‘onto-type’ becomes ‘irruptively actualized’, actualized as the supplementary opposite of the dominant, external face/manifestation of its predecessor vanguard ‘onto-type’.

And this process, of new ‘onto-type’ actualization, typically by self-«aufheben» self-meta-individual-ization, i.e., by  self-meta-holon-ization, self-meta-unit-ization, or ‘self-meta-monad-ization, is also the concrete, in-context instantiation of the dialectical negation of the negation.  It is the ‘present self-meta-individual-ization of the previous self-meta-individual-ization; the ‘present self-«aufheben» of the previous self-«aufheben»’. 

2.  «Species»:  Specific Narrative of the Unitary Nature-Dialectic of a Paradigmatic Particular Example.  

The Particular, Paradigmatic Example for this Vignette:  Stellar Meta-Evolution’/“Stellar Nucleosynthesis.  In the Dyadic Seldon Function formulation of the Dialectical Theory of Everything Equation, that is, of the Seldonian Cosmos-History Meta-Model, the various kinds of, and “generations” of, stars, figure as dialectical synthesis formations, i.e., as ‘partial and total uni-physes, which synthesize ions, atomic nuclei, eventual non-ionic atoms, from sub-atomic particles, mainly, at first, by a thermonuclear fusion process named stellar nucleosynthesis, which populates the later universe with higher atomic species

Thus, stars figure in that Meta-Model as ontological conversion-formations, ontologically hybridized formations, containing both “lower atomic speciesnuclei, generated, earlier, by cosmological nucleosynthesis, and sub-atomicparticles [e.g., “free, naked protons -- ionized Hydrogen “atoms”], and even sub-nuclearparticles.

However the purpose of this example, we will focus attention only upon the thermonuclear-fusion-conducting core of a hypothetical, Sol-like, “first generation” star, so that we can treat that stellar core as the locus of a self-«aufheben» progression of self-conversions, or auto-conversions [punctuated also by allo-conversions], of meta-physes’, of self-hybrid self-meta-individualizations’[also referred to as ‘self-meta-unitizations’] of “sub-atomic particles” as units -- of core protons [and neutrons] as units -- into Helium nuclei, ions of Helium atoms [e.g., He++], as the meta-unitsof those units.  

We will describe these processes “locally”, i.e., relative to this one, individual stellar core as locus.

Beyond, e.g., the “proton-proton [p-p] reaction, the fusion of protons/ionized Hydrogen atoms/Hydrogen isotope ions [e.g., Deuterium] into Helium nuclei, stellar nucleosynthesis will later entail, for stars of large-enough initial mass, a progression of further 'physio-onto-dynamical meta-finite singularities. 

I.e., it will entail a progression of ‘‘‘self-interactions’’’, or intra-actions’, of the ontologically-unprecedented, newly-arising stellar core new-kind-of-element «arithmoi» of nuclei [meta-]units of rising atomic number; of interactions” among their [meta-]units, i.e., of both auto-meta-unitization’ and allo-meta-unitization’ nuclear reactions, sometimes followed by atomic-number-reducing radioactive decay of the reaction-product nuclei.   

These nuclear reactions include Hydrogen nuclei [atomic number 1] into Helium nuclei [atomic number 2:  auto--->allo]; Helium nuclei into Carbon nuclei [atomic number 6:  auto]; Carbon nuclei into Magnesium nuclei [atomic number 12:  auto], Sodium nuclei [atomic number 11:  auto], Neon nuclei [atomic number 10:  auto], Nitrogen nuclei [atomic number 7:  via radioactive decay], and Oxygen nuclei [atomic number 8:  auto]; Oxygen nuclei into Sulfur nuclei [atomic number 16:  auto], Phosphorus nuclei [atomic number 15:  auto], and Silicon nuclei [atomic number 14:  auto]; ... ending with Iron nuclei [atomic number 26:  allo-meta-unitization/radioactive decay].

The main progression of such stellar core fusion “burning” is Hydrogen [proton] “burning”, Heliumburning”, Carbonburning”, Neonburning”, Oxygenburning”, and Siliconburning”. 

This progression of new 'atomic <<species>>' '''syntheses''', followed by their self-"burnings", thereby synthesizing the next such <<species>>, is what F.E.D. terms the 'stellar-meta-evolutionary progression of the successive epochs of stellar evolution'  

The nuclei units of most of the remaining chemical elements are generated by hybrid and/or ‘‘‘non-nucleosynthetic’’’ processes.   

The driver of this progression is the dialectical intra-duality or self-duality or indivisible-duality that stars are.

A star is the dialectical ‘‘‘complex unity’’’, the continual dueling, and 'dualing', of a continuing self-gravitational self-implosion and of a colossal thermonuclear self-explosion, both at the macrocosmic level, opposing one another at every point within the star [sometimes called “hydrostatic equilibrium”]. 

Both arise from the very “self”, the body, of the star itself, and both are tied to the opposition between the core protons’ mutually attracting nuclear force, and mutually repelling electrostatic force, at the microcosmic level. 

Both of these microcosmic forces are sourced in the self-same core protons themselves.   

Thus, as initial core Hydrogen is completely converted into Helium in a Sun-like star, the ‘thermonuclear self-explosion’ dual momentaneously subsides, leaving the ‘self-gravitational self-implosion’ dual unopposed.  

This brings the epoch of stellar core Hydrogen "burning" -- of Hydrogen fusion nucleosynthesis of Helium -- to a climactic end, and self-enters the stellar core into a transitional period of 'physio-ontological self-revolution'.  

Therefore, there begins, at this moment, an accelerating self-contraction, self-compressing the whole star, and its core, and driving-up the ‘physical-spatial concentration’ -- the density -- of the Helium “ash” in the core, until a critical threshold of Helium density is crossed. 

Just beyond that threshold, “the Helium flash” irrupts. 

That is, a “runaway process” of Helium fusion -- of the “ash” resurrecting itself to “burn” anew, in a new way of “burning” -- irrupts into existence, along with the first ontologically new kinds of nuclei that result from Helium fusion.

The latter new kinds are the new, unprecedented ‘physio-ontology’ of, e.g., Carbon nuclei [new and unprecedented for this locus, for this core’s locale, at least].   

The quantitative growth of the stellar core Helium population, via Hydrogen fusion, and its quantitative ‘densification’ due to the eventual exhaustion of Hydrogen “fuel”, leads to that qualitative, ontological change. 

That change/qualitative-expansion of 'nuclei ontology' is the irruption of the new-kind ‘physio-ontology’ of Carbon nuclei, etc., as the “ash” of “Helium burning”.

This qualitative, ontological change occurs after the metafinite singularity of the “Helium flash”, which converts the ‘‘‘ash/waste/entropy”’ of core Helium nuclei into the new ‘‘‘fuel/resource/negentropy’’’ of a new epoch of revived, continued stellar evolution.   

When the core Helium “fuel” is itself, in turn, completely converted to Carbon, etc., “ash”, this process self-continues again, in temporal meta-fractal self-similarity to the Hydrogen/Helium pattern just described, until energy-liberating, self-explosion-dual-sustaining nucleosynthesis finds its ultimate limit with the irruption of Iron nuclei as the predominant content of the stellar core.  

. . .

Links to definitions of additional Encyclopedia Dialectica special terms deployed in the discourse above --



auto-negation or self-negation

Booles Algebra



dialectical categorial progression

‘‘‘dialectical contradiction’’’ versus ‘‘‘propositional contradiction’’’, etc.

dynamics versus ‘‘‘meta-dynamics’’’


evolution versus ‘‘‘meta-evolution’’’

self-meta-monad-ization or self-meta-individual-ization

ontological category