It is quite clear that the first two of Engels's so-called 'laws' are incompatible with one another. Here is how Engels characterised them:

However, according to Engels and Hegel, such 'qualitative' changes are 'nodal', that is, they aren't gradual, they are sudden:

And here is Engels:

Here, too, is Plekhanov:

Despite this, it is quite clear that the 'nodal' aspect of the first 'Law' is incompatible with the second 'law', the Unity and Interpenetration of Opposites (UIO), or at least the UIO is inconsistent with the DM-rejection/criticism of the LEM.

[LEM = Law of Excluded Middle; FL = Formal Logic; DL = Dialectical Logic.]

Here is Novack on the alleged 'laws' of FL:

Of course, Novack is just parroting Hegel and Engels here (all the while offering no evidence to substantiate his claim that Aristotle's logic (let alone modern logic) is based on these 'laws', or even that he (Novack) has got these 'laws' right!

[In fact, he and every other DM-theorist I have read (and there have been hundreds of these -- no exaggeration!) over the last twenty-five years has got these 'laws' wrong. On that, see here.]

For example, here is Engels on the LEM:

Now, I have shown (here and here) that the above ideas are far too confused to be assessed for their truth or falsehood, but the point I wish to make in this post is that the above 'law' (the interpenetration of opposites, etc.) is incompatible with the first law (the 'nodal' change of quantity into quality).

To see this, consider object/process P which is just about to undergo a qualitative 'nodal' change (a "leap") from, say, state P(A) to state P(B) -- for example, water that is just about to boil, and thus change from liquid to gas.

For there to be a 'nodal' change here it would have to be the case that P is in state P(A) one instant/moment, and in state P(B) an instant/moment later (howsoever these "instants/moments" are defined). There is no other way of making sense of the abrupt nature of 'nodal' change.

[To spare the reader, I will simply refer to these as "instants" from now on.]

Of course, we are never told how long such 'nodes' are supposed to last, which fact allows DM-theorists to include anything from an ice age to a quantum leap as a 'node', introducing an element of subjectivity into what is supposed to be an 'objective' law.

However, given the strife-riven and sectarian nature of dialectical politics, any attempt to tell us how long such DM-'nodes' are could lead to yet more factions. Thus, we are sure to see emerge the rightist Nanosecond Tendency -- sworn enemies of the Picosecond Left Opposition -- who will both take up swords with the 'eclectic' wing: the "it depends on the circumstances" 'clique' at the 'centrist' Femtosecond League.

Be this as it may, if the above were so (i.e., if P is in state P(A) one instant, and in state P(B) an instant later), then any state description of P would have to obey the LEM, for it would have to be the case that at one instant it would be true to say that P was in state P(A) at that instant but not in state P(B) at the same instant.

That is, it would not be true to say that P was in both states at once (which is, of course, a core idea of the DM-account of 'nodal' change). In that case, these two states would not interpenetrate one another, since the LEM would apply to this process at that instant: P must therefore be in state P(A) or state P(B) (but not both) if the change from P(A) to P(B) is to be 'nodal', or "sudden".

On the other hand, if these two states do in fact interpenetrate one another (and the above conclusions are false) -- such that the "either-or" of the LEM does not apply, which, we are told, it cannot do at a point of change -- and it were thus the case that P was in both states at once, then the transition from P(A) to P(B) would be smooth and non-'nodal', after all!

Now, this fatal dilemma is independent of the length of time a 'node' is supposed to last (that is, if we are ever told).

It is also worth noting that this inconsistency applies at just the point where dialecticians tell us DL is superior to FL --, that is, at the point of change.

So, once more, we see that not only can DL not explain change (on that see here), at least two of Engels's three 'Laws' are inconsistent with one another (when applied to objects/process that undergo change).

Zeno would have been proud of you

Gil:

Maybe so, maybe not, but as proud of me as he would or wouldn't have been, he'd definitely take his hat off to you (for why, see below).

Anyway, I take it that this irrelevant comment of yours means you can't respond effectively to my post.

No change there then.

Parmenides would have been proud of you...

Hi, me again.
I am trying to follow your line of argument. I cannot. I will not present a counter argument as such as I am to dumb too understand what you are trying to say.
I can however present my own understanding of your subject matter. I explain in simple terms to help others understand, at least my version of it. I learned it all from some books on the subject. Not as many as Rosa's.
I personally have understood dialectics as an all sided approach to processes, as a safeguard against mistakes. I think I left you before at that point. I was busy with the non virtual world, not that I am making a complaint, against the virtual world.

Anyhow this is my a priora starting point. I don't really want to examine the origins
of this idea, however it has always been my understanding, but it goes back to my interpetation of Lenin. Does it really matter when but what if it is true.
Somehow I assumed that dialectician always started with this a priora assumption.
Dialectics was easy you look at things from as many angles as possible and come up with a solution, a definition or a working model.
The Laws of dialectics, to me merely posited poles, that seem to exist in the real world. Quantity and Quality being one pair These poles are different measures.
There are too many examples to bother relating of one becoming the other.
The laws of dialectics as far as I can see are descriptions of the interplay of poles that often correspond to what is happening nature.
I dont want to prove this, as yet. This is just my understanding of what they are meant to be.
The unity of opposites. I have seen all through nature. in the sense that many categories exist in opposition to other categories and are unified by the larger group
they are in. I am very close to formal logic on that one.

Explaining change.
First of all change is a universal, in that it does not happen only in particulars or only individuals. Change is a universal category unlike say jim the cat with 3 legs.
Jim being the individual
The cat with three legs being the particular, in this circumstance.
The cat is a universal.

Change as a "category" has a history. Parmenides has one take, Heraclitus another.
I have understood dialectics in terms of phases of development.
Most things have a birth a middle and an end. Most things have a story. The only complaint that I have understood against formal logic is that it is a possible source of error is one phase is rigidly held to as being the whole process. caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Dialectics only says that caterpillars turn into butterflies, and caterpillars should not be regarded as constant.
That is my understanding of the relationship between formal logic and dialectics.
I have no understanding of any relation between formal logic and dialectics beyond that.
My understanding of dialectics also has an assumption, change is an objective reality
no matter what Permenides says. Heraclitus says "everything changes".
I might be wrong but I dont thinks so. Heraclius was correct.
He just says change exists, really. It is not too hard to accept. Everything is possibly qualifiable but it is the case with most things we experience.

This is again my humble understanding of dialectics.
Now as to explaining change beyond its existence as a universal. This to me is absurd
I never expected a universal explanation of change from dialectics.
As far as I am concerned, I have always thought that what we did when we used dialectics was to look at the history of a process as far as that is possible and its relations with other processes and observe the specific phases of that process so
as to come to a rough understanding of that process, in terms of a general category framework such as quantity and quality of contrasting trends within the object of analysis.
At no point did I think that such an analysis would be free from subjective error. Indeed
I expect that in hindsight I will discover mistakes later.
This is all I need from dialectics. I suspect it is all that most people can take from it at the fundamental level.

Going deeper abstractly in a polemic about the inadequacy of dialectics. Dialectics is inadequate that is fundamental to its nature. It is only an improvement on the mistake formal logic may make about a caterpillar being a caterpillar always, in the concrete.

Dialectics is not semantics it is uncovering the truth of what is going on.
Does any logic explain change?
Maybe some of the DMs have complicated it too much for you.

My understanding of dialectics maybe different but I cant see where it falls down.
All you seem to be saying is that is not a perfect way of looking at things.
Is there one?

PeaceN:

It's very straight-forward: if 'qualitative' change is 'nodal (i.e., if it happens in 'leaps'), then it must be the case that any state of matter is qualitatively one way one instant, and then qualitatively another the next.

So, at two successive instants, a body or process will be in state A one instant, and then state B the next, but not both.

Hence, at the moment of change the 'law' of excluded middle will apply to this process -- it will be A or B, but not both.

In that case, the dialectical criticism of this 'law' (excluded middle) is defective since that 'law' does not fail at the point of change, just where we were told that it should and does fail.

On the other hand, if the above 'law' of excluded middle does indeed fail at the point of change (as we are told it always does), then the above process will be in both state A and state B at the same instant.

But, if that is so, the change from A to B cannot be sudden, and the 'nodal' aspect of Engels's 'law' fails.

Either way, dialectics takes a sizable hit.

I'll deal with the rest of what you say in a later post.

PeaceN (forgive me for saying so, but your post reads like a simple confession of faith akin to those that bible bashers come out with when faced with the arguments of us atheists):

But this 'theory' is full of mistakes and errors -- or rather, it is in fact far too vague for anyone to be able to say with any confidence whether it is true or false. For example, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible:

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77

This is the exact opposite of what Engels said:

This is underlined by Trotsky and George Novack:

So, not a good start...

As we have already seen, this 'law' does not work either:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-q...709/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-mat...588/index.html

But more fully here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

You have seen "all through nature", have you? Are you some sort of deity?

And, how do you know that there aren't objects and processes in the next galaxy that do not work this way?

However, the real problem with this 'law' is that if it were true, change would be impossible, as I have demonstrated to you before:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=29

Peace:

1) We already know that dialectics can't explain change -- see above.

2) There are countless things in nature that do not change -- protons and electrons for example -- or if they do, they do not change because if their 'internal contradictions', for they do not have any.

3) The cat is in fact an animal, not a universal. Where did you learn biology? From Lysenko?

But, you don't know any Formal Logic! You could not even follow my argument in the OP, for goodness sake!

Moreover, Formal Logic does not deny caterpillars change into butterflies, in fact Temporal Logic can cope with such changes quite nicely:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic

And, to repeat, it is Dialectical Logic that can't in fact account for such changes.

It can't even account for dead cats and live butterflies!

Depends what changes you are referring to, but ordinary language and informal logic can cope with far more changes than formal logic can, and formal logic can cope with far more than dialectics (which can account for zero).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

Well, your simple confession of faith is no help at all.

Maybe not, but dialectics is so hopelessly confused, even if we needed a perfect theory, or one that was only 1% perfect, dialectics would not even make the bottom of the reserve list of likely candidates.

Rosa let me be slightly clearer, I think your own arguments against Zeno's way of thinking apply - if valid - to your own method in suggesting inconsistency between the two 'laws'. It is your own consistency that is at stake here.

Gil:

Fine words; let's see you put some proof where your mouth is.

Perhaps so.
You have not instilled in me enough doubt.
.

I just think you are too black and white, to consider grey. Then you make grey out of black and white.

You have not listened to a word I have said.


Dialectically you change the word "Formal" into "Temporal".

Btw, A cat is as much as an example of as universal as you are as an obscurantist.

PeaceN:

Once saved, always saved, eh?

And your evidence for this it what?

Heard it all before, a thousand times.

You lot all say the same things, even while you think you are saying something new. Indeed, it always amazes me that you mystics think that if you repeat the same old b*llocks a thousand times it will work, even when the previous 999 attempts failed dismally.

1) Temproal logic is in fact part of Formal Logic, as you would know if you knew any modern logic.

2) How can I have changed this word 'dialectically'? If I had, the two should have been in 'conflict' with one another. Did you see then slugging it out on your screen?

1) Yet more a priori dogmatics I see.

2) Once more, a cat is an animal. I think you mean that the concept "...is a cat" is a universal.

3) What part of my comments are 'obscurtantist'? In fact, it's you who relies on a theory that he cannot explain, which does not work and which is based on a defective grasp even of Aristotelian logic.

And you are the one who thinks a furry animal is an item of logic!