METHODOLOGICAL TAXONOMY OF FUNDAMENTAL LAWS AND THE MODAL DISCIPLINE OF ORIGIN: a critical-propositional analysis of Alena V. Petina’s article in dialogue with the Theory of Objectivity

Abstract

This article presents a critical-propositional analysis of Alena V. Petina’s The Methodological Gap and the Taxonomy of Fundamental Laws: Levels I, II, and III as the Basis for Scientific Classification, in dialogue with the Theory of Objectivity. Petina proposes a three-level classification of laws: mechanistic laws, architectural fun- damental laws, and primary generative structures. This taxonomy is examined as a methodological framework capable of clarifying the scientific status of first-causal theo- ries. The analysis argues that Petina’s Level III bears significant compatibility with the modal, ontological, and cosmogonic structure of the Theory of Objectivity, especially with its axioms, phenomenic elements, Inducer Effects, cosmogonic theorem, cosmo- logical Eras, and the conception of radiation-information as a transcendent element produced in atomic relations. The article also identifies tensions concerning the status of axioms, the need for modal necessity, the criterion of uniqueness, and the demand for operational bridges. It concludes that Petina’s work does not empirically confirm the Theory of Objectivity, but provides a strong methodological grammar for legitimizing its foundational claims within a scientific-philosophical framework. Keywords: Theory of Objectivity; Vidamor Cabannas; Denivaldo Silva; Alena V. Petina; fundamental laws; Level III; modal necessity; first cause; phenomenic elements; Inducer Effects; radiation-information; cosmology; philosophy of science.