i don’t mean to be a dick in a thread about controversial opinions, but tbh it just sounds like you haven’t read much theory on dialectical materialism. all of the examples i gave were extremely bare-bones in order to give you a wider variety of examples. delving into the specificity of each one becomes extremely complicated.

two is important because it’s the number that defines a relationship between things. a relationship between two things is, by nature of the definition, not a relationship with any other thing. this sounds like an oversimplification to you, and it is. let’s take the example of alice, bob and carol to explain dialectical systems:

• each individual relates to every other individual, i.e. A/B, A/C, B/C
• each individual relates to the rest of the group, i.e. A/BC, B/AC, C/AB
• the group itself relates to other people or groups, i.e. ABC/X

this explains how a system of three can be pared down to all its different and theoretically separate relations. of course, there are systems of four, or five, or five hundred, or billions, and the same thing is true in these cases as well. what groups or categories are relevant (i.e. ontology) is determined both by reality and the human interpretation of it. in the context of evolution: yes, one singular predator/prey relationship is one of thousands upon thousands of relationships within one ecosystem. there’s plenty of writing on marxist ecology you can read to better understand this

as far as unity of opposites, it just sounds like you don’t understand what the term means. a unity of opposites means that two things both define and exclude each other. in the case of matter and energy: we cannot truly understand matter outside of its relationship to energy, and yet matter is not energy and vice versa. i do not know enough about the math of general relativity to go into deeper specifics with you there, but i’m sure you could find reading on it if you were so inclined.

clearly the computational example is not sufficient for or useful to you, since your issue is that you don’t believe diamat applies to the natural sciences outside of human experience, so i will skip this.

as far as how we reach conclusions, again this is pretty basic theory in terms of the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, which can really be understood as the understanding of the application of the scientific method to all human life and experience. correct ideas, i.e. correct theories, can only be understood as such via the testing of those theories (experiment and observation), i.e. practice. this is the primary reason why i can give you an unending number of examples, but none will really be meaningful unless you apply and understand one yourself. at the same time, just because a theory is a theory does not necessarily mean it’s wrong, it just means it hasn’t been tested or put to observational scrutiny yet. general relativity was only a theory (math is theory) until the bending of light was observed in real life. now that it has been sufficiently proven, no one would question our application of it in various contexts.

i know it might not seem like it, but i really, absolutely understand where you’re coming from, because it is exactly how i felt about diamat when i first started learning about it. “how can anything be applicable to ALL things? i don’t see any dialectical relationships in x example.” “how can everything be divided into two things? this makes no sense.” but, the more you learn about it and subsequently apply it to your life (both daily life and specific scholarly research), and consistently are returned with positive feedback thus indicating a correct idea, in will increasingly indicate to you its universality. this is again why i can give you examples until my fingers fall off and we would come up with the same result until you applied and tested the theory yourself, which is what i encourage you to do.