philosophy

[dniprovska]

Although the struggle between opposites (thesis and antithesis) are not the driving force of progress, their tendency to form unity is a basic principle of self-organization providing stability of both micro and macro systems. Any structure is the result of “meeting” of or splitting into two (or more) mutually complementary opposites (like positively and negatively charged particles, or predators and preys, or labour and capital, etc.). The unity of opposites turns the accidental into the regular; chaos transforms into order if it contains sufficient quantity of opposites (the primordial chaos evolved into substance as it consisted of particles with complementary characteristics, such as polar charges).
Opposites may be defined as mutually complementary aspects/entities with equal quantitative, but polarised qualitative characteristics requiring minimal energy for long-lasting coexistence (unity). Opposites should not be mixed with contradictions that are entities/aspects requiring maximal energy for close and long lasting coexistence. The conflict of opposites is an important mechanism of self-organization, as it serves as a viability test, selecting the most stable and relevant elements, as there is no open system possessing unlimited reserves of space and energy. The way a system “solves” the problem of opposites depends on the reserves of space and energy it has at its disposal: the less are the reserves, the more probable is destruction and elimination of a less stable element, but if the reserves are abundant, the more possible is separation and preservation of conflicting entities. (This principle may be clearly observed in biological and social communities: the higher are the abundance of food and energy a biological community has at its disposal the higher is the role of cooperation [instead of competition] between species and vice versa; the higher is the level of economic development, the more tolerant is a social system to its members and the less sharp are social contradictions.)
The struggle between contradictory sides and entities are especially numerous and intensive during the period of transition from quantitative changes into qualitative . This period begins when system receives/looses the portion of energy being sufficient to break the unity/balance of its basic opposites that determines its form and main properties.
While the unity of opposites limits the power of chaos, the decay of this unity opens the way to a stream of accidental events. When opposites loose their unity all components of the system run off their axes, chaotically clash with each other and finally form a new, more efficient system of interconnections.
The result of qualitative changes is negation of negation. (This term was coined and introduced by G. Hegel, who based his dialectical concept on the triad of laws: unity and struggle of opposites, transition from quantitative changes to qualitative and negation of negation.) Actually the development of an open system is a series of qualitative leaps which lead to gradual elimination (negation) of the initial structure and its substitution by a qualitatively new one.
The negation of negation process may also be interpreted as a variation of the principle of unity of opposites. Qualitative changes almost never lead to elimination of all components of the previous structure. If an element (block) preserves its internal unity of opposites and if it is able to establish complementary ties with other elements of the system (or in other words, if the quantity of time and energy necessary to eliminate a part of a system exceeds the quantity of time energy necessary to include it into its new structure and maintain viable ties with it), the element (block) will be preserved.
This principle allows systems to save material and energy and to maintain vital relation with the environment if their evolution is not synchronous. A system needs time (relatively long chain of spontaneous interactions) to substitute all elements of the initial structure. As usual, quantitative changes leading to qualitative transformations are quite weighty to break the existing balance, but do not contain material being sufficient for composition of absolutely new finished structure. So, the development of an open system is gradual addition of new elements to the initial structure along with partial elimination (negation) of the less viable and adequate ones.
A new species preserves many features of its ancestors, which provides adaptation to the natural surroundings – a living organism with absolutely new constitution can hardly survive within the environment that has not synchronously changed. None of social revolution or reform eliminates at once all previous economic and political structures. For example, early bourgeois revolutions in England and France ended with Restoration as (along with other reasons) they met with hostility of the most of neighbouring states where monarchy still dominated which hampered normal economic relations, so the nations which too early transited to new type of socio-economic structure had to restore some old political institutes to normalize relations with other states.

It has been already said that dialectical concept of opposites (thesis and antithesis) as the driving force of evolution was too abstract and did not correspond with the real state of things, so the problem of the driving force of evolution remains open, as other versions produced by scientists who studied self-organizing (developing) systems and philosophers are not less disputable.
Ch. Darwin considered natural selection as the driving force of evolution of living organisms. Nowadays this statement is criticised by a number of naturalists, as there are numbers of objective facts (proven by experiments) that put this version into question. The most of bourgeois economists had no doubts that private property, free market and competition are the chief stimuli of economic development. However, the history of Latin America and the most of new independent states shows that introduction of liberal economic model may not lead to rapid industrial growth moreover it may even worsen living standards. The latest vivid examples of relative efficiency of free-enterprise system are the failure of market reforms in post-soviet Russia and economic collapse in Argentina; all this raises doubts concerning free trade, free competition and private property as the universal moving force of socio-economic development.
Synergetic and other modern theories of self-organisation view chaos or relative instability as the factors that urge systems to develop, but this opinion omits the fact that instability pertains to almost all open systems, but not every system of such type is able to evolve into a more highly organized one.
The most likely, such term as the driving force of evolution is not applicable to particular (open) systems. A certain common and general factor/s that stimulates the development of all material systems (or a certain class of systems) does not exist at all. Evolution is the result of successful combination of fruitful material that contains various building blocks for new structures and favourable conditions that select/preserve the most highly organized and functional entities. (For example, the line of evolution that finally led to emergence of Homo Sapience became dominant due to sudden climatic changes at the end of Cretaceous Period that caused extinction of gigantic reptiles and vacated ecological niches for more highly organized homeothermic creatures.)
For such favourable combination may occur there should be maximal quantity/diversity of material for evolution, variety of conditions and intensity of interactions between elements and structures that are involved in the process of development. Cosmos is a gigantic laboratory producing the enormous quantity of experimental patterns. The greater is the quantity/diversity of elements and the more numerous are the interactions between them, the higher is the probability of emergence of a certain type of structure; when quantity reaches a certain degree the probability becomes of 100%.
The more complex is a structure the less is the probability of its accidental emergence, so the higher is the level of organisation of matter the greater diversity of material and conditions is required for it could spring into existence and survive and the narrower is localization of its evolution. Recombination (formation of atoms of hydrogen and helium) occurred everywhere in Cosmos, but the further development of substance is possible only in the cores of stars and in supernovae. Chemical elements are formed by several classes of elementary particles, while the reactions that form organic matter involve about a hundred of elements and only relatively small number of planetary systems has necessary conditions for emergence and evolution of life. Biological evolution had produced hundreds of thousands of species until it created the most highly organised creature endowed with Reason. The emergence of Homo sapience is the lest probable event and more likely only a single planet of billions may be the cradle of Reason, as it is hard to believe that the chain of accidental events due to which a primitive prokaryotic cell evolved into extremely complex rational creature may be repeated several times at several places. Presumably, Homo sapiens is the only rational creature in the Cosmos and this binds him with great responsibility for the destiny of the Universe.

Another problem that can not be solved in the frames of Hegelian dialectic is the problem of acceleration of development. This phenomenon is especially typical for biological evolution and social development. It required about 1.5 billions of years for single-celled eukaryotes could evolve into multicellular organisms. The period between the emergence of medusa and jawed fishes was approximately 245 millions of years; then after 112 millions of years the first reptiles appeared. The evolution of mammals that led to emergence of primates lasted 19 millions of years while the anthropogenesis lasted about 2 millions of years.
Human society lived in primitive state for about 1 millions of years; the archaic (antique) period lasted for about 4 thousands of years; the period of feudalism accounts only about 1 millennium; modern epoch began about 200 years ago but during this relatively short period human society had underwent more changes than during all previous epochs.
But if proceed from the assumption that the source of novelty is spontaneous (accidental) interactions of elements and structures the abovementioned phenomenon will not be a riddle. The greater is the number and the variety of interacting elements the less time is necessary to produce new entities. Moreover, each new element/block of elements forms the niche (basis) for the next ones; that is why the higher is the level of complexity of a self-organizing system, the higher is the probability that new spontaneously emerged structures will be included into it. A new group of living organisms forms ecological niche for other members of an ecosystem: the products of vital functions of primitive single-cellular organisms formed soil and atmosphere necessary for evolution of flora and fauna; the diversity of flora forms prerequisites for the diversity of fauna, etc. A new branch of industry constitutes basis for several relative branches: coal mining and steel factories preconditioned development of railroads which facilitated communication and speeded up economic development.
As open systems have limited reserves of space and energy, their development can not perpetually accelerate. When a system’s reserves of energy that provided high intensity of interactions have been considerably exhausted and when new elements have occupied all (or almost all) vacant niches, its development slows down or interrupts. If the system is able to find additional space and sources of energy, its evolution may be renewed, otherwise the system will degrade. Devolution (being a special case of self-organisation) submits to the same basic principles with development. It is also initiated by occasional processes, but when a structure degrades, accidental events leads not to formation of new entities, but simply to breaking ties between the existing ones, as a result the system looses some of its components. This uneven and non-synchronous extinction of elements “erodes” the system’s basic opposites, so they cease to be equal and complementary and become unable to maintain the balance of the whole structure. When the balance is broken the system selects the most viable blocks and elements and establishes new types of relations (undergoes qualitative changes). When a system develops it usually selects the most complex and multifunctional elements, but if it degrades the most subtle and supplementary structures are eliminated and substituted by more primitive ones, so the spiral of negations moves downward.

Although the principle of unity and struggle of opposites is not applicable to particular (open) systems, this statement should not be viewed completely wrong. It is the case when the laws of the whole are not applicable to its parts. Our Universe being a closed system exists and develops due to the unity and struggle of the opposites, namely substance and energy. These two main components of the Being have quite opposite properties – substance has inherent tendency to concentration and stability while energy (the source of movement) tends to unlimited freedom and dissipation. The laws of Order pertaining to substance limit this freedom by uniting material elements with each other and retaining energy inside material structures. But finally the stream of energy breaks any order and continues dissipating in all directions. This “restless” nature of energy is the cause of entropy eroding things and systems and making them dead (unable to perform any function). To resist entropy a system should constantly add new components to its structure (i.e. attract additional sources of energy). Hence, evolution (gradual transition from lower to higher level of organisation) is a vital process as the higher is the level of organisation the less energy it wastes. The ability to extract, accumulate, preserve and transform energy is the main criterion for estimating the degree of progress. The higher is the level of organization of matter the less energy it wastes. The process related to formation of subatomic particles was accompanied by an enormous discharge of energy. The laws of gravitations (which became valid after recombination) accumulated atoms and molecules (together with energy they contain) into stellar objects; reproduction and evolution of living organisms requires much less energy losses then formation of new chemical elements (evolution of non-organic matter), as living organisms (in contrast to non-organic entities) are able to search for new sources of energy; the more developed is a socioeconomic structure, the less energy it wastes for production of goods and services, etc.
Emergence of Homo sapience and civilization is a necessary stage of general evolution of the Universe, as human beings are the only creatures that are able not only to search for and transform energy but to turn it into constructive channel for self-preservation and self-reproduction purposes, so only the constructive activity of Homo sapiens may prevent such dissipation of energy that leads to the death of the Universe. If energy completely eliminates the power of Order and scatters material objects along infinite space and disperses into infinitely small portions, the World will vanish. But if Order gets complete triumph over the Spirit of Inconsistency and locks it up into an exclusive circle, matter will fall into eternal lethargy that also means non-existence, as to exist is to create, to produce new forms, to undergo perpetual metamorphoses. Only perpetual struggle with variable success between these two opposites makes our Universe fruitful, i.e. alive.