Remarks on the missing theory of semantic reference in economic theory.

Being, Nothing and Becoming in the structure of the primes.

Part 2 of 2.

Being, Nothing, and Becoming interpreted in terms of the simplest possible feedback equations.

Part 1 of 2.

A popular objection to Marx’s labor theory of value is that human labor alone doesn’t create profits: labor must be mixed with capital and land to produce useful output; and, anyway, machines can replicate many tasks that humans perform — there’s nothing special about human labor. Take a human taxi driver. Replace them with a robot taxi driver (some future version of self-driving cars). There’s no difference. The robot passes a Turing test for being a taxi driver. And the company still makes a profit. Hence, human labour is not the sole cause of profit, and the labour theory of value is false.

In this talk I explain why this view is wrong, but nonetheless gives us a useful entry point for gaining a deeper understanding of Marx’s theory of surplus-value, and why the origin of profit is human labor alone.

In the talk I (i) briefly review Marx’s theory of surplus-value, (ii) explain why materialists accept that, in principle, all human capabilities can be automated, (iii) describe a Turing Test for Marx’s theory of surplus-value, (iv) emphasize the importance of understanding that Marx’s theory of surplus-value is irreducibly dynamic in nature, (v) discuss the ideological inversion that causes people to think that machines can create value, (vi) discuss the macroeconomic data that reveals a clear empirical signature that labor creates profit, and (vii) close with some speculations on what may happen when humanity, driven by the blind imperatives of the alien demiurge, is finally forced to abolish itself.

At the top of the pyramid is a baleful eye, Capital — a real God, the demiurge of the world — that controls every aspect of our lives. Marx scaled the pyramid and gazed into the depths of the horror. Human cognition against alien cognition. Rationality against irrationality. Did Marx retain his sanity, or did he lose it?

A 40 minutes introduction on the genesis of Marx’s transformation problem.

Short talk that summarises the 1930’s book “The Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution”, followed by brief critical remarks. Useful, I hope, if you’d like to get a high-level summary of its main propositions.

This is a recording of a talk given on 9th June 2022 in Oxford. I discuss the two sides of Newton: the enchanted medieval Christian — believer in occult spirits that move the universe — and the disenchanted early modern scientist — believer in mechanisms, laws and the experimental method. I discuss Newton’s Arianism and his speculations that a Cosmic Christ maintained the laws of nature both in the macrocosm (the incorporeal transmitter of action at a distance) and in the microcosm (the alchemical spirit or “fire at the heart of the world”). But his decades as Master of the Royal Mint did not yield any significant economic theory. For Newton the commercial world — populated by chiselers, counterfeiters and market hagglers — was already disenchanted, almost godless — and therefore no hidden spirits maintained its motion. This modern myth, of an entirely secular realm of economics, persists to this day.

40 minutes talk.

In 1874 the mathematician Georg Cantor published a paper that claimed to prove the existence of an infinite hierarchy of infinities, each more vast than the infinity before it, stretching out forever like some vast alien landscape. Cantor had achieved the seemingly impossible feat of counting beyond infinity. If true, this is astonishing intellectual achievement.

However, the existence of higher infinities is, on the face of it, absurd, for one very simple reason: infinity, by definition, is bigger than anything, and therefore there cannot be anything bigger than it. And we cannot practically count up to infinity. So what’s the use of postulating abstract structures that we cannot possibly construct?

Cantor’s reasoning is highly abstract. Can we trust it? And, even if we can, does it matter? Does it make any practical difference to our lives? Are there material consequences? Perhaps Cantor’s higher infinities identify deep, hidden structures that we’ve yet to fully interact with or notice in our empirical stream of experience? Or perhaps Cantor’s higher infinities are like the medieval proofs for the existence of God? We might grant that Cantor’s argument has some kind of logical necessity, but the premises just don’t connect to the reality we actually live in.

In this talk I give my (personal) conclusion on the status of higher infinities. I point out that, surprisingly, Cantor’s theory does entail some empirical predictions. But currently there’s no evidence to support those predictions (and quite a lot of evidence that suggests material reality prevents them).

But reality has a way of surprising us. We shouldn’t dismiss the importance of inductive creative leaps. So the jury is still out. A materialist attitude also includes the cheerful acceptance of ignorance. Sometimes we simply don’t yet know!

Cantor’s ideas raise questions about what rules of logical reasoning we are willing to accept. So they raise very profound and foundational issues about the identity of thought and being.

The fun part: you too will be learn to count beyond infinity (with the help of this handout: https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/infinityhandout.pdf). One of the surprising aspects of Cantor’s proof of higher infinities is its elementary nature. With just a small amount of effort, anyone can understand it.

30 minutes talk.

Start-ups reproduce capitalism by creating new ventures that split people into an owning class (who lay claim on the firm’s residual income) and a working class (who don’t own the firm, and get paid a rental price for their labor). This social relationship is exploitative, in the very precise sense that the owning class – after a tipping point when their initial capital advances (plus any risk premium) are repaid – steal value created by others. Although not recognized as such, this is institutionalized theft, which, if the venture grows and becomes successful, operates on a global scale. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In this talk, I briefly explain how worker-owned co-operatives are jointly owned by their working members, and (ideally) shun equity capital (which cedes ownership of the firm to non workers) and instead raise loan capital (which avoids that).

The first 25 minutes are an introductory talk, and the last 15 minutes respond to points raised in the discussion (not recorded).