Kondrashin I. Dialectics of Matter

Systemic Approach to Fundamentals of Philosophy

Contents

• Preface


• Introduction


• I. Structural-Functional Synthesis of Evolving Systems




• Matter, Motion and Evolution




• Motion in Space


• Motion in Time


• Motion in Quality


• Evolution


• Energy






• II. General Theory of Material Systems




• Systemness of Matter


• Functional Cell and Functioning Unit


• Principles of Systemic Formation of Matter




• III. Dialectical Genesis of Material Systems




• The Cascade Nature of the World Formation




1. Level a - virtual corpuscles


2. Level A - quarks


3. Level AA - neutrino & photons


4. Level AB - mesons


5. Level B - neutrons & protons


6. Level C - atoms


7. Level D - molecules


8. Level E - aggregate


9. Level F - multimolecular


10. Level G - substratum


11. Level H - cellular


12. Level I - organisms


13. Level K - hyperorganisms




• Primordial Communities


• Slave-Holding States


• Feudal States


• Capitalistic Period


• Period of Modern Hyperorganisation








• IV. Systemic Architectonics of Organisational Levels of Matter


• Postface

---

border="0" alt="(C)"> Igor I. Kondrashin 1997

First published in 1997 by
The Pentland Press Ltd.
1 Hutton Close,
South Church
Bishop Auckland
Durham
United Kingdom

All rights reserved.
Unauthorised duplication

   contravenes existing laws.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

   A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85821 463 7

---

Send to the Author Author's Official Web-Site

---

Composition, design (C)
Mironenko I.E.,
2000

[ To Contents ]

Igor I. Kondrashin Dialectics of Matter

Introduction

The nineteenth and the twentieth centuries have brought
to humanity a lot of scientific discoveries, and were marked with unprecedented
achievements of the intellect. The works of Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx and Engels,
Einstein, Pavlov and other great thinkers gave us the opportunity to take a serious
view on the universe surrounding us in a new way, to perceive quite differently
phenomena and events that are going on around us. The progresses in physics and
chemistry, biology and cybernetics, scientific and technological achievements, and
as a result, the expansion of industrial production, have considerably increased
potential possibilities of the human society in obtaining a large spectrum of
consumer goods and articles of general use.

  
At the same time, beside the said process, a range of problems
and questions, which need urgent replies and definite decisions, becomes wider. Among
them: the unrestrained growth of population when natural resources are progressively
draining; the research of new alternative sources of energy when climatic changes
become more fatal; the increasing number of incurable diseases - cancer, AIDS, etc.;
a larger-scale of the social polarization of the society and the growth of organized
crime and terror; the pressing necessity of the global rise in efficiency of social
labour with environmental protection at the same time, a sooner destruction of
accumulated stockpiles of nuclear weapons that have a great potential danger to
end all the civilization on the Earth.

  
What are the prospects for a further existence of the mankind,
the objectives of its evolution, its optimal pattern and numbers of the population?
What should be considered justified and sufficient in its consumption? These and other
analogous questions are arising more insistently before the intellectual part
of humanity, forcing them to make more and more mental efforts to reach equitable
solutions to all the problems.

  
Meanwhile, after classical ancient philosophers (Heracleitus,
Plato, Aristotle), the attempts to solve the mysteries of the universe and to disclose
the causality of phenomena of the objective world were undertaken by Bacon, Descartes,
Spinoza, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Kant and other thinkers of the past. Each of them in
his own way supplemented the common ACCUMULATING FUND of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.

  
The names of Hegel and Feuerbach are occupying particular
places in this line as the philosophical concepts of 'dialectics' and 'matter', that
gave a key to the understanding of current events and phenomena we are facing in daily
life, were crystallised in their books.

  
The category 'matter' was more or less clear to everybody and
the dispute was going only to accept it or not to accept at all, and if to accept, then
primarily or secondarily. The situation with the category 'dialectics' was much more
complicated. All the progressive intellectuals of that time were understanding that
exactly with its help our knowledge about the universe would advance forward, but how
to do it, or was it possible to do something of that kind with the current volume
of knowledge, nobody knew at that time yet, as in the 'dialectics' itself there
were too many confused and incomprehensible things. And the 'dialectics' itself, in
the opinion of F. Engels, had been so far closely investigated by that time only by
two thinkers, Aristotle and Hegel.

  
"Any systematisation after Hegel is impossible. It is
clear that the universe constitutes itself as a unified system [italicised by
me - I.K.], i.e. a constrained unity, but the cognition of this system presupposes a
cognition of the whole nature and history, what people never achieve. Therefore those
who construct systems, have to fill in an innumerable quantity of blanks by their
own inventions, that is to dream irrationally, forming ideologies," - wrote
F. Engels in Anti-Duhring. But already this work itself was one of the first
attempts to write an encyclopaedic essay of interpretation of philosophical,
natural-scientific and historical problems with the assistance of the new method.
The systemic approach and certain elements of the materialistic Dialectics were used
also by K. Marx during writing of Das Kapital.

  
In the meantime searching minds of analysts could not be at
peace, wishing to crystallise more and more, to sharpen the 'dialectics' and with its
help to reconstruct the whole picture of the universe from a historical point of view.
It was obvious that only in this way would it be possible to draw laws of development
of the nature, of the society. "When I [Marx wrote in a private letter] will
be more independent financially, I will write Dialectics. The true laws of
dialectics Hegel already has, indeed, in a mystical form. It is necessary to release
them from this form". In another letter, addressed to Engels, Marx wrote (in 1858):
"If I would have some time again for such works, I would draft with great pleasure
on two or three printers' sheets in a form easily understood for human common sense
that rational, what is in the method, which Hegel has discovered, but at the same
time mystified."

  
Simultaneously with Marx and Engels other analysts were
understanding as well the importance of improving the method of the materialistic
Dialectics. In this connection we ought to mention the works of I. Dizgen, whom F.
Engels described in the following way: "It is perfect, that we have discovered
not alone this materialistic dialectics, which already during many years was serving
as our best instrument of labour and our sharpest weapon; a German worker, Iosif Dizgen,
has discovered it anew, irrespective of us and even irrespective of Hegel."

  
Thus already at that time it was evident that to find solutions
for problems that humanity was facing, it was necessary with the help of the method of
the dialectical materialism to reconstitute the most full unified picture of the universe,
and on the basis of the objective laws and regularities being revealed as a result of this
brainwork, to determine the nature of links and the mechanism of interaction of elements
of Matter in order to exploit them deliberately in our everyday activity.

  
However, it was impossible to implement this without extensive
knowledge. That is why both Marx and Engels equally showed permanent interest in natural
sciences. There was even a peculiar division of labour between them. Marx more thoroughly
knew mathematics, history of technics and agrochemistry, besides he was studying physics,
chemistry, biology, geology, anatomy and physiology; by comparison with Engels he was
studying more mathematics and applied natural sciences. Engels more thoroughly knew
physics and biology, besides he was studying mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, anatomy
and physiology; by comparison with Marx he was studying much more theoretical natural
sciences.

  
The founders of Marxism were understanding that in order to
create a complete world outlook it was necessary not only to reshape critically previous
achievements of philosophy, political economy and socialist teachings, but also to
summarise the fundamental achievements of natural sciences of that time, without
which it would be impossible to give to materialism a new, dialectical form.

  
As a result of many years of thorough studies of natural
sciences in order to generalise them theoretically, Engels made up his mind to write
a work based on new original ideas - Dialectics of Nature. As its systematising
basis Engels decided to use a classification of forms of motion - mechanistic, physical,
chemical, biological - in order to determine in the said sequence common dialectical
regularities typical for all these forms of motion. Thus in Dialectics of Nature
Engels set for himself a grandiose task - by means of synthesis of theoretical outlines
of different spheres of knowledge into a unified scientific theory to prove that in the
Nature, through it seems to be a chaos of innumerable changes, the same dialectical laws
are paving their way, that also in the History they are dominating over what seem to
be chance events, hereby to substantiate the universality of fundamental Laws of the
materialistic Dialectics.

  
Engels himself formulated this task in the following way:
"...For me the thing was not to bring the dialectical laws into the nature from
without, but to find them in the nature and bring them out of it. However, to fulfil
this systematically and in every separate sphere it is a gigantic work. The point
was not only that sphere to be mastered is almost immense, but also that the natural
sciences themselves in all these spheres are involved in such a tremendous process of
radical changes, that only just to observe them one should spend all his spare time
he has..."

  
After the death of K. Marx in 1883, F. Engels, doing his
utmost to complete the publication of Capital and at the same time guiding
working-class movement, already had no possibilities to study the natural sciences
systematically and practically had to stop writing his work. Dialectics of
Nature, being only in manuscript drafts, was left unfinished. It was published
in the USSR for the first time only in 1925 and V. Lenin did not read it.

  
Apart from this Lenin was also realising the full importance
of extending the dialectical method of cognition, of making use of it in theoretical
researches and practical activity. Therefore his next opinions in Philosophical
Notebooks are typical: "The principal idea of Hegel is of genius: a universal,
all-round, lively connection of everything with everything and reflection of this
connection... in a human being's conceptions, which also should be trimmed, broken off,
flexible, mobile, relative, interconnected, united in antipodes to comprehend the world.
The continuation of Hegel and Marx's cause should be a dialectical processing of the
history of human's thought, science and technics. ... From live contemplation to abstract
thinking and from it to practical activity - such is the dialectical way of cognition of
the truth, cognition of the objective reality." After study of his philosophical
abstracts, fragments, notices of 1914-15, it becomes clear that Lenin also had it in
his mind to write a special work about Dialectics, but the events of following years
left him no possibility to carry out his creative plans.

  
Since that time there was nobody, in fact, who showed serious
scientific interest, trying to guess the meaning of mysteries of Dialectics, who liked
to come to know its universal Laws.

In the meantime the Life continues its impetuous flight on
our grain of sand - the Earth lost in the boundless ocean of the Universe. The problems
of our existence are clambering up higher and higher with every passing day while
Humanity now self-sufficiently, now carelessly and at times with fear, is gazing at them
in the most part of the mass even not thinking and not suspecting that one day these piles
can finally collapse and fall down on their heads, ruthlessly crushing and overwhelming
everything, that was created by the human civilization in the course of thousands of
years.*) If it happens, then by this it can be only
proved, that our civilization appears to be a deadlocked branch in the general Plan of
the Evolution of Matter. So deadlocked or passable, self-destructive or not?

  

---

*) Both fear and unconcern
as well as groundless optimism appear as a result of narrow-minded
estrangement from generally existing problems.

---

If objectively there is a reply, then the only one who can
grant it, is the joint Human Intellect - the supreme creature of the evolving Matter.
And the only reliable tools for this purpose can and should be the Dialectics, that
universal instrument, with which help the Humanity can be able to disclose secrets yet
not disclosed, to keep safe and even to increase what is already gained, to outline
barely visible goals ahead and perspectives. Only with the help of the Dialectics is
the Intellect capable of this. The refusal to follow this or even to abstain temporally
from contacts with it can lead to the most lamentable results, including also in our
every day life. The piling problems of nowadays are an evidence of this.

  
"Indeed, dialectics cannot be despised," Engels wrote
in Dialectics of Nature, "with impunity. However great one's contempt for
all theoretical thought, nevertheless one cannot bring two natural facts into relation
with each other, or understand the connection existing between them, without theoretical
thought. The only question is whether one's thinking is correct or not, and contempt of
theory is evidently the most certain way to think naturalistically, and therefore
incorrectly. But, according to an old and well-known dialectical law, the incorrect
thinking, being carried to its logical conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite
of its departure point. Hence, the empirical contempt for dialectics is punished in the
way that some of the most sober empiricists are being led into the most barren of all
superstitions - into modern spiritualism." Unfortunately these words are actual
nowadays as well.

  
Thus a continual, more and more extending theoretical way of
thinking, a further penetration into mysteries of Matter, revealing the Laws of its
motion, drawing of the general Plan of its Evolution - all that undoubtedly requires
dialectical generalisation of the achievements of natural sciences of nowadays. On the
other hand, the undeserved consigning of Dialectics to oblivion, the refusal to study
it further for more than a half century, and as a consequence, a forced necessity
to make use of some of its conclusions without taking into account the appeared
anew factors of the changed epoch, finally all that leads to the triumph of
'antidialectics' - agnosticism, dogmatism and neospiritualism.

  
In connection with this the words of V.I. Lenin from his article
'Our Program', written in 1899, sound more justified: "We do not look at all at the
theory of Marx as at something completed and untouchable; on the contrary, we are convinced,
that it put only corner-stones of the science, that socialists must [underlined
by Lenin] extend further in all the directions, if they do not want to be left behind
by the course of life." Unfortunately this very important scientific and practical
recommendation of the classic of socialism in fact was left without proper attention
by present-day socialists and his warning proved to be oracular.

  
Consequently even a temporary suspension of studying Dialectics
is a deviation from it, a contradiction to its spirit of permanent development, which is
strengthening the position of antidialectics.

  
Lenin wrote how to carry out the process itself of dialectical
cognition: "It is impossible to understand outside the process of understanding
(acquaintance, actual study, etc.) In order to understand something it is necessary to
start empirically acquaintance, studies, from empeiria go to general. To learn swimming
it is necessary to enter water."

  
There are also interesting thoughts of A. Einstein describing
the mechanism of a modern theoretical research: "Initial hypothesis become more and
more abstract, more and more distant from feelings. But at the same time we are approaching
more closer to the most important target of the science - from a fewer number of hypothesis
and axiom logically to receive in the deductive way maximum of genuine results. At the same
time the way of thinking from axiom to sensible results and verified consequences becomes
more longer, more refined. A theoretician has more to be guided during searches of theories
by purely mathematic, formal consideration, since physical experience of an experimenter
does not give the possibility to rise directly to spheres of the highest abstraction.
Primary inductive methods, inherent to the youthful period of science, are replaced by
searching deduction. Moreover, it is essential to advance so in the creation of such a
theoretical construction, that to come to the results, which are possible to compare with
experience. Naturally the experience is serving here as a powerful judge. But its verdict
can follow only after long and difficult mental work, making the bridge between axiom
and consequence." This scheme is valid for theoretical searches in any sector of
scientific knowledge.

  
It is well known, that all the existing natural scientific
theories usually reply first of all to the question how?, while for disclosing
of mysteries of our being it appears much bigger need to find replies to numerous
questions why, WHY? This task can be solved only by the creation of a
universal theory of evolution, which could be able to comprehend by a unified theoretical
scheme the whole way of the Evolution of Matter - from the lowest forms of its existence
to the most evolved ones, moreover, to comprehend it in such a way, that it would be
possible to show the process of the evolution of the highest forms out of the lowest
ones and at the same time to reveal the causality of the said process.

  
Until now there was no such universal Theory, and its
creation and popularisation was always the first and most important target of all
philosophers-theoreticians. The creation of such a Theory can be effected on the
basis of the Dialectical Materialism, as only the Dialectical Materialism, differing
from any other method of cognition by studying individual regularities of motion, is
able to outline laws of universal motion and development. This difference is conditional,
as the dialectical logic is not a closed system of concepts, consisting of strictly
determinate number of laws and categories, but allows any changes of its essence
and the introduction of new categories. The classics of Marxism considered it as
a continuously developing system, requiring regular supplements of new elements,
making in categories the necessary changes, which are dictated by the course of
development of scientific cognition, the creation of new philosophical concepts.

  
In order to meet all these requirements the materialistic
Dialectics should regularly expose its categorical apparatus to self-examination, define
its ability to give a proper appreciation to deterministic conditionality of events and
phenomena and find optimal solutions to actual problems, supplement the essence of laws
and categories on the basis of generalisation of new facts about the development of
society and scientific knowledge, extrapolate evolutional motion of forms of organisation
of Matter at least for the nearest historical future (in spite of all neospiritualistic
forecasters and pseudo-astrologers) to smooth over, although for Humanity, the consequences
of the forth-coming negative events and cataclysms. Hence in its arsenal, besides
perceptions and formal logical deduction, there should be the most advanced forms of
thought, able more freely and easily to handle elements of scientific abstraction with
the help of intellectual intuition in the process of the analysis of numerous phenomena
aiming to unite synthetically the revealed regularities in a unified theory.

  
Thus the development of dialectical logic means first of
all a further elaboration of categories of the materialistic Dialectics, enrichment
of the content of their meaning, advancement of new concepts, appearing as categories
of Dialectics, establishment of associations between them, creation of a unified logical
system, allowing in the most complete and authentic form to reflect the reality and to
advance the scientific cognition ahead in the way of further disclosing of mysteries
of the evolving Matter.

  
In this book the author makes an attempt, summarising well-known
scientific knowledge in the considered sphere and adding new necessary elements, to create
on this base sought for logical system, continuing and carrying out the plans of founders
of Dialectics (first of all of Engels) and meeting at the same time the requirements of
the present-day scientific cognition. It is quite natural, that even not every professional
philosopher has enough theoretical preparation and a bulk of individual knowledge,
especially natural-scientific, to understand adequately all elements of the system being
described. Therefore the description is of a somewhat scientific-popular type, and any
reader who has enough interest and inclination, by thinking logically can easily get the
dialectical essence of the theory being suggested.

---

[ To Contents ]
[ Part I ]

[ To Contents ]

Igor I. Kondrashin Dialectics of Matter

I. Structural-Functional Synthesis
of Evolving Systems

"The target of any science, like natural science or psychology, is the concordance of our feelings and unification them into a logical system." A. Einstein German scientist-physicist "Each scientific theory should be based on the facts, which it should explain and between these limits it can be considered fair; with the appearance of new facts, which do not correspond to the said theory, this theory earlier or later should be changed by a new one, more generalised." A.M. Butlerov Russian scientist-chemist "With every epoch-making discovery, even in spheres of natural sciences, materialism should change its form." F. Engels

Matter,
Motion and Evolution

"The universe always contains the same
quantity of motion." - R. Descartes.

  
"The motion is the only way of existence of matter. There
was nowhere and never and there is no matter without motion... Matter without motion is
as inconceivable as motion without matter. Therefore the motion is as increatable and
undestroyable as matter itself - ... : the quantity of existing motion in the universe
is always the same." - F. Engels.

  
"There is nothing in the universe except matter
in motion." - V.I. Lenin.

  
These three postulating quotations put the corner-stones
to our cognition of the general theory of evolution of the universe.

  
So Matter is the objective reality, the nature of which are
different forms of motion, being itself her attribute. Hence there is nothing in the
universe except motion, all existing construction material is motion. Matter is
woven with motion. Any particle of any substance is a regulated motion of micro motions;
any event is a determinated motion of elements of the system of motions. It is possible
to resolve mentally any phenomena, events or substance into different forms of motion as
well as out of different forms of motion in conformity with certain Laws it is possible
to synthesize any phenomena, event or substance of Matter. Therefore in order to know
how it happens it is necessary to learn the Laws, that regulate different forms of
motion of Matter.

  
Until now the motion of Matter is associated on
the whole only with her motion in space and in time while the attention
of researchers was drawn mainly to technical problems of calculating and measuring
distances in space and intervals in time, disregarding fundamental problems of the
space and of the time.

  
However, as it is well known, the first rather clear positive
ideas about what Space and Time are were expressed by the Greek thinkers of the classical
period (the geometry of Apollony, Euclid, Archimedes, the ideas about time of Aristotle
and Lucretius). Since the epoch of Galileo and especially since the epoch of Newton,
space and time became integral components of the world and of the scientific view of
the Universe. Moreover, the physical space started to be treated with the backing of
the geometry of Euclid and time - to be interpreted by analogy with geometrical
coordinate. The object of the Science became the description and explanation of things
and their alterations in space and time. Space and time were mutually independent and
were forming the objective, precisely determined and given to us primordial background.
Everything could change except the spatial-temporal system of coordinates itself. This
system seemed to be so invariable, that Kant considered it as a priori and
moreover as a product of the intellectual intuition.

  
The comprehension of relativity of motion was realised only
at the time of Descartes, because all equations of motion and their solutions were made
in determinate systems of coordinates, and a system of coordinates is a conceptional
but not a physical object. Consequently, though motion was relativised in a system of
coordinates, the latter was considered as attached to the absolute space.

  
And only about a hundred years ago the idea was mentioned
for the first time that any motion should be attributed to some system of counting off.
Though what was offered in fact was a model of a physical system of counting off made
with the help of a geometrical coordinates' system, and accordingly that could not entail
any transformations in mathematics as it was only semantic alteration, but it was enough
to make the concept of the absolute space depart. After that one could already suppose
that if in the universe though one body was existing it could not move as motion is
possible only relatively to some material system of counting off. That is why quite
irrespective of acting forces the concept of motion started to be meant for the system
having at least two bodies. And if the Universe was quite empty then there was neither
space nor time. The physical space exists only in the case that there are physical systems
(bodies, fields, quantum-mechanical substances, etc.). So the time exists only due to the
fact that these systems are changeable in this or that way. The static universe would
possess spatial features but would have no time.

  
Thus the reasonable philosophy of space and time
in contradistinction to the purely mathematical theory of space and time started
to proceed from the assumption that space is a system of concrete relations
between physical objects and time is some function of modifications which
are going on in these objects. In other words it became a relative but not an
absolute theory of space and time.

  
The next phase in the progress of the theory of motion became
the Special theory of relativity developed by A. Einstein in 1905 which revealed:

   a) that space and time are not mutually independent,
one from the other, but represent themselves as components of some unity of higher
order named the space-time which disintegrates into space and time relatively a certain
system of counting off;

   b) that length and duration are not absolute, that is
not independent from a system of counting off but become shorter or longer exactly due
to the motion of a system of counting off;

   c) that there are no more purely spatial vector
magnitudes and mere scalars: three-dimensional vectors become spatial components of
four-dimensional vectors, which temporal components are likewise to scalars of the past.
Meanwhile the fourth coordinate has quite another meaning than the other three coordinates
and temporal component of a spatial-temporal interval has its own symbol contrary to a
symbol of spatial components. Due to these and other reasons, time in the special theory
of relativity is not equivalent to space though it is tightly linked with it.

  
The Special theory of relativity practically added very little
to render concrete the concept of motion, since space and time are not more important in
it than it was in the till-relativist physics; this theory says really nothing about what
the space-time means except as a description of its metrical characteristic. Philosophical
aspect of space and time was not broached in it.

  
The theory of gravitation or the General theory of relativity
developed by A. Einstein in 1915 did its bit in the cognition of physical characteristics
of spatial-temporal motion. According to this theory, space and time are not only
relativist (but not absolute) and relative (that is relevant to a system of counting off)
but they also depend on everything that the world contains. So the metrical characteristics
of space-time (that is a spatial-temporal interval and tensor of curvature) should be
considered now as dependent on allocation of substance and field in the Universe: the more
density of substance and field, the more space is curvatured, the more trajectories of rays
and particle are curvatured, the faster clocks are going. According to the General theory
of relativity a body or a beam of light generates gravitational fields and the latter are
reacting to the former. The interaction is telling on the structure of the space-time.
If all substances, fields, quantum-mechanical systems disappear, then according to basic
equations of the General theory of relativity the space-time would not only continue to
exist but also would retain its rimmanov structure. But it would not be physical space-time.
What would remain would be a mathematical system of counting off and have no physical
meaning. As a whole the General theory of relativity has not yet received the proper
philosophical generalisation due to the fact that its mathematical apparatus is extremely
difficult to understand.

  
One can say nearly the same about physical researches studying
processes that are going on in the whole Universe. During the last decades cosmology
stopped being a separate autonomous science and became the highest applied field of
physics - megaphysics, studying the problems of the space-time in all the volume: cosmic
space and eternity as a whole. But to imagine the evolution of the whole Universe during
several temporal eras and give preference to one of many defending hypotheses of its
formation on the basis of the astrophysical argumentation is still not enough. That
can be done only with the help of serious philosophical research ruling out various
antiscientific imaginations.

  
Hence nowadays the human cognition has reached such a level
when our ideas regarding space and time stop being purely natural scientific and
transform more and more into philosophical problems, the solution of which at last
would give the possibility to reply to such fundamental questions: what is space
and time, how they are linked with existence and coming-to-be, what part they
are taking in the evolution of material forms in general.

border="0"> Motion in space.
So for dialectical understanding of the structure and the Evolution
of Matter one should underline the following: the motion in space is tightly linked
with the motion in time - motion in space cannot be without motion in time. The motion
in space has a dual characteristic. First of all it includes the motion of a material
spot, or a system relatively another spot, or a system of counting off that is relative
spatial motion. It can take place only in more space in comparison with elements of
motion size of space and is typical only for those material spots and subsystems which
are set in motion within this space. Meanwhile their own spatial size of elements
of motion themselves remains constant and they only consecutively occupy the volume
necessary for them inside a hyperspace, leaving free exactly the same volume behind
them. Models of a relative type of motion in the space-time can be relative
displacements of an individual photon, molecule, car or planet.

  
But the motion of these material spots and bodies, being
considered apart from the whole system of similar units, is a particular case of
motion of elements of this system in a hyperspace. In other words, if a molecule
of gas substance in motion occupies successively one and the same volume of space
S (while and the
occupied volume itself border="0">, that is constant and equal to a theoretical figure) then a system
of molecules - theoretical gas flying away to different destinations in the
open space occupies more and more volume (while during each temporal interval
and velocity
of diffusing in space equal to width="53" border="0">). Such spatial motion should be considered as absolute and
it characterises a spatial field occupied by a material system of linked similar
units. Models of such motion can be a diffusion of gases and liquids, a flying away
of photons of light from its source, etc. If in natural scientific researches mainly
the first relative type of motion in space is studied then for philosophical
understanding of Dialectics of Matter its second absolute type is more important that
is combined spatial displacements of all similar elements linked in a system.

  
Finishing a short excursus into 'space' let us define more
precisely its relative commensurability for systematic formations. In everyday practice
to measure space one can use the ordinary 'metre'. But the distance to one of the
visible distant galaxies comes to 10²⁵ m, while the diameter of a proton
is equal to 10^-15 m. Therefore there are grounds to agree with a logical
conclusion that all the lengths surrounding us of space can be expressed with any
magnitude from 10^-n to 10ⁿ metres where n can take any significance
from 0 to .

  
This is an exegesis of universality of space and other
forms of existence of Matter as well: from infinity into the depths till infinity
into hypersphere.

  
In everyday practice people usually use magnitudes from
10^-4 m (the thickness of a sheet of paper) to 10⁶ m. But because
of our inability to measure distances less 10^-30 and more 10³⁰
metres it would be wrong to consider that forms of motion of Matter do not exist
in spatial intervals with border="0" align="abscenter">.

  
Directions of motion in space have a purely formal
meaning in a philosophical research due to the isotropy of space.

border="0"> border="0"> border="0"> Motion in time.
As it is well known any motion in space is tightly linked with
the other form of motion of Matter - the motion in time. Any combination of
these two motions creates an event.

  
The motion in time has the same dual characteristic
as motion of material forms in space. Let us look up at a second hand of a
watch turning around its axis. Every moment of time it occupies a certain location
corresponding to a temporal locality on the coordinate of time. In the next moment
it leaves this location, occupying the next one. Together with the tip of a second
hand we are steadily moving from one temporal point to another, leaving the former
and getting into the next one while the temporal intervals themselves selected by
us are equal. Such motion in time should be considered as relative, for temporal
intervals successively alternate each other. Their magnitude can be different. For
contrasting it is enough to compare the speed of displacement of a point of counting
off associated with the end of an hour hand with the speed of a point of counting off
associated with the end of a plane's turning propeller. The difference of temporal
intervals related to a unit of angular or spatial displacement is obvious.

  
As our first example we took an event with duration of
one second. But if we take an event with duration of one hour then it is possible
to divide its temporal interval into 60 minutes or 3600 seconds. Seconds can be counted
starting from the first one into an accumulating total. Although we shall feel ourselves
only in the interval of the most recent second the total duration of the event in fact
will continue as a sum of all second's intervals starting from the first one. Such summary
increase of time during the process of the duration of an event should be related to as
absolute motion in time. Consequently after the completion of any event or in its absence,
and no absolute
motion in time occurs. Due to this fact it is possible to declare that motion in time
or growth of time
exists only for events combined also with other changes, but for an onlooker always
situated in the actual point of count off, the growth of time practically does not happen
and it remains constantly as t₀. As for the motion in time, an onlooker, i.e.
you and me, can judge only by indirect indications, revealing by that his capacity for
abstract thinking.

  
At present events with different temporal intervals are known:
from 10^-22 sec. (the duration of one vibration of a proton in a nucleus) to
10¹⁸ seconds (a supposed period of existence of the Sun in the form of a star).
In everyday practice people use temporal intervals from 10^-8 sec. (the time of
crossing a room by light) to 10⁹ seconds (the continuance of life of a human
being).

  
But also as in case with 'space' we can assume that duration
of events' intervals can be of any magnitude from 10^-n sec. to 10ⁿ
seconds where n takes any significance from 0 to height="15" width="17" border="0">.

  
hspace="25" vspace="25">

When speaking about the direction of time's progress and its
reversibility we can note the following: if a point of count off of spatial coordinates
can be joined with any spot in space and transferred arbitrarily to another spot
(following the principle of their equivalent relativity), and any such transference can
have a positive symbol, then a point of counting off of the temporal coordinate makes its
forward motion only strictly in one direction, measuring off temporal intervals of the