**From:** Paul Cockshott (*wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk*)

**Date:** Thu Apr 03 2008 - 11:01:34 EDT

**Next message:**John Holloway: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Previous message:**Paul Cockshott: "RE: [OPE] How to read Capital"**In reply to:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Next in thread:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Reply:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Paul C: All aspects of social relations of production can not be be expressed as 'calculi'. That is, in part, because there are essential aspects of those relations which can not be expressed as *magnitude* and are comprehensable merely through formal/mathematical calculi. -------------------- Quite right, Gerry, but I was criticising your account of computing as being based on mathmatics, my argument is that as a materialist one has to see the reverse relationship material laws of physics -> allow practices of mechanisms -> possibility of maths of computation Maths arose out of concrete material practices associated with for instance the measurement of land in order to apportion it between state tennants in ancient Egypt, giving rise to geometry The recording and tallying of sheep, cattle and other goods in the temple economies of Summer gave rise to notations for number and practices of arithmetic for example. The tallying of herds on tally sticks gave rise to the Roman system of number notation which itself later became an encoding of the commercial practices of merchants in the use to tally tables to do calculations in an abbacus like fashion. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 1629 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of GERALD LEVY Sent: Thu 4/3/2008 1:54 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century How, for instance, is the changing 'balance of power' among (and within) contending classes under capitalism calculated? If class struggle is calculi, can't it (at least in principle) be expressed as a quantitative *formula*? I see the exclusive emphasis on 'calculi' as ... well ... undialectical. In solidarity, Jerry "Calculi are rules for the manipulation of strings of symbols and these rules will not do any calculations unless there is some material apparatus to interpret them. Leave a book on the low-calculus on a shelf along with a sheet of paper containing a formula in the l-calculus and nothing will happen. Bring along a mathematician, give them the book and the formula and, given enough paper and pencil the ensemble can compute. Alternatively, feed the l-calculus formula into a computer with a lisp interpreter and it will evaluate." (Are There New Models of Computation? Reply to Wegner and Eberbach, Paul Cockshott and Greg Michaelson,, The Computer Journal 2007 50(2):232-247; doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxl062) "And conversely, when we interpret Turing's theorem as a statement about what can and cannot be computed in physical fact, we are adopting some of his tacit assumptions about physical reality or equivalently about the laws of physics. So where does mathematical effectiveness come from? It is not simply a miracle, "a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve" [17] - at least, no more so than our ability to discover empirical knowledge, for our knowledge of mathematics and logic is inextricably entangled with our knowledge of physical reality: every mathematical proof depends for its acceptance upon our agreement about the rules that govern the behavior of physical objects such as computers or our brains. Hence when we im- prove our knowledge about physical reality, we may also gain new means of improving our knowledge of logic, mathematics and formal constructs. It seems that we have no choice but to recognize the dependence of our math- ematical knowledge (though not, we stress, of mathematical truth itself) on physics, and that being so, it is time to abandon the classical view of com- putation as a purely logical notion independent of that of computation as a physical process. In the following we discuss how the discovery of quantum mechanics in particular has changed our understanding of the nature of computation."( MACHINES, LOGIC AND QUANTUM PHYSICS DAVID DEUTSCH, ARTUR EKERT, AND ROSSELLA LUPACCHINI) _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

- application/ms-tnef attachment: winmail.dat

**Next message:**John Holloway: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Previous message:**Paul Cockshott: "RE: [OPE] How to read Capital"**In reply to:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Next in thread:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Reply:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT
*