A Socialist Solution: P Verses NP

Double-Square-01

Bourgeois science in the West – like its ancient and classical Greek counter-parts (from which it has logically originated) – has benefitted and progressed the world, whilst simultaneously hanging the heavy weight of oppression upon the shoulders of the masses. The majority of the people, are of course, permanently omitted and excluded from the elitist educational establishments that the bourgeois system has developed to secure their dominance within and through the socio-economic structures common to capitalist existence. The masses benefit over-all as a class, but in a piece-meal fashion, limited by access to commodities and services through inequality, poverty, and unemployment, etc. In other words, although the material standard of society has progressed from that found within, for instance, the feudal system, the fundamental inequality of bourgeois society ensures a state of perpetual and grinding poverty as an existential reality for the majority of people entrapped within it. Bourgeois science is no exception to this description, and is a codification of capitalist thinking, wants, and desires. This is why the proletariat, being of a thoroughly different and more progressive class in potential, are more or less permanently excluded from its hallowed academic halls, as such a presence threatens to transform ‘greed’ as a defining impulse, into that of ‘need’. In other words, the bourgeoisie temporarily ‘solve’ the problem of the presence of the proletariat by excluding it from all relevant narratives of political and cultural influence. This has implications for the assessment of the bourgeois computer logic problem currently defined as P verses NP, which will be explained shortly.

As the bourgeois system refuses to recognise the pre-eminence of the thinking of Karl Marx (and Frederick Engels), it remains fully stuck in the past, and in a self-perpetuating ‘pre-Marxist’ state. This is because Marx solved the myriad fetish problems thrown-up by Western thought, (much of which was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian theology), by creating a self-sustaining philosophical narrative that transformed limited thinking (within closed systems) into a permanent and ‘new’ method of analysing data. This perspective created a method of continuous deconstruction of the present – as it immediately presented itself to the senses – and in so doing exposed the true historical materiality of the present moment, as being conditioned solely upon the previous socio-economic conditions, which were in turn the product of the various historical epochs preceding the current time. Individuals became, through Marx, collectivised waves on the sea of unfolding historical activity, but which simultaneously possessed the way out through creating a true consciousness that fully understood the present, the past, and consequently how to build a better future. Those who do not acknowledge the evolutionary (and revolutionary) thinking of Marx, also miss the chance to progress not only to the next level of human development, but potentially to an intellectual appreciation of all levels yet to come.

As a means to secure the ongoing persecution of the proletariat throughout the bourgeois education system and the capitalist system, simple problems are unnecessarily developed into an exclusive closed system of expression that has a special coded language associated with it. This coded language can only be learnt at the best universities, attended by those who already possess the ‘correct’ socio-economic circumstances that privilege their social standing within a society whose interaction is premised upon accumulating profit, whilst making a virtue out of ‘greed’. This coded language constitutes a shared dominance of particular aspects of knowledge, the study of which has become a ‘fetish’ for the middle class. This coded language – so removed as it is from the rigors of the everyday struggle for existence – only serves to further alienate the working class from its study due to a lack of relevance, but what is it that is being seen during this process?

Bourgeois thinking is a particular assessment of facts as interpreted from a logic base that has not entirely detached itself from the religiosity of the past. Exclusive universities – which developed out of the Christian monastic institutions of the Middle Ages – continue to monopolise knowledge and dictate the socio-economic direction of its use. In this respect universities (and the research foundations they support), are the ‘new’ churches which peddle the ‘new’ interpretation of knowledge, which like the theology that preceded it, is not allowed to be questioned in any meaningful, and proletariat manner. This casts the lecturers and staff as the new priests of the bourgeois academic order, and de facto ‘defenders of the faith’.

P verses NP is really a coded expression of the issue of ‘problems’ and ‘problem solving’ in relation to computer programming. In typical bourgeois style, this issue has become typically ‘mystified’ and so rarefied that it is apparently beyond the minds of the ordinary people to solve.  However, this is nothing short of bourgeois ‘inverted’ thinking that once justified the belief in a god construct, and the notion that physical life suddenly appeared as if out of nothing. Computers and computer programming are examples of ‘closed systems’ of logic at work. These systems are nothing more than self-contained channels of directed thought, comprising of a logical chain of cause and effect events, with each leading toward a particular and isolated objective. This is exactly how the bourgeois control and protect the flow of knowledge their academics produce. These closed systems of privileged knowledge are deliberately made to be obscure and opaque to outside influence and understanding. It is implicitly assumed within these closed systems that a person without the right or correct bourgeois background with access to elitist educational establishments, does not historically possess the intellectual ability to either ‘understand’ or ‘see through’ the conundrums that signify the bourgeois presence. This approach becomes self-sustaining because for the bourgeois, knowledge is traded for money that enriches the individual, and is not shared to aid the progression of humanity as a collective.

Computers are not gods, and computer logic (i.e. that body of knowledge relating to computer use) is not theology. Computers are nothing more than the logical manipulation of material resources, organised through the minds and bodies of humanity. Thoughts and ideas merge through and with the division of labour, and a functioning computer is produced. A computer, regardless of its sophistication, is only as clever as its computer programmer – but this is not strictly true – as the computer is really only as clever as one part of the intellectual function of the computer programmer who programmed it. Computers represent a limited logic used to ever absurd heights of sophistication, but as of yet, no thinker has been able to break the cycle of limited logic as forming the basis for computer operation. If computer programming and functionality is viewed as two-dimensional, no single research has been able to breakout of this limitation, as such a breakout would mean the end of the logical parameters of computer functionality, and by inference, the end of all computers and computing. In short, it is the limitation associated with two dimensional closed systems that defines the developed functionality of modern computers. The supposed next step is the divergence into ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) which at the moment is defined through purely bourgeois sentiment – as if a functioning machine will suddenly (as in a miraculous event) develop endearing human qualities – like a lovable old aunt, or favourite nephew, etc. Such a development would require the movement out of two-dimensional computer programming, and into three-dimensional computer programming, which would in effect, require a functioning human mind to replicate a fully functioning human brain comprised of metal, plastic, and electricity, so that it could be self-sustaining and self-propelling, etc.

P verses NP can only be solved by a human mind at the moment – simply because it is the human mind that has produced it. A computer cannot solve P verses NP without the technical and mechanical philosophy that defines contemporary computer science being radically altered out of its current bourgeois dominated format. This is nothing short of a proletariat revolution and the seizing of the means of production. As modern computers reflect the bourgeois minds that have produced them, therefore it can be correctly stated that problems that P verses NP represent, are nothing less than the inherent contradictions implicit within the bourgeois mind set. Or to put it another way, how can greed for profit create a system of technological expression that is not limited by the rationale of ’greed for profit’? To achieve this the bourgeois scientists would have to think beyond the socio-economic conditions that have produced them. P verses NP is simple: human beings can gather information from various sources, using different and varied means to do so, a process which may involve the including of certain data, excluding other specific data, whilst verifying an original solution to a particular problem. The resultant gathered information can then be fed into a computer programme, or data storing device. Depending upon the computer programme, this stored (or ‘kept’) data can then be analysed and used in a number of ways. However, no matter how strong or elaborate a computer programme is, a computer does not possess the ability to gather the information itself (in the first instance), nor exclude certain information from its data-base, whilst keeping other data. In other words, a computer programme – which is the product of a bourgeois mind set, does not possess the ability to recognise the presence of a ‘problem’ and automatically adjust its data harnessing, storing, and organising capabilities. Therefore the formula P verses NP is the recognition that a computer retains two-dimensional data assessing skills, but completely lacks the ability to develop three-dimensional data assessing skills – with the intention to problem solve. As the computer (and its function) is limited to the bourgeois system that has produced it, it is unlikely that a solution to this riddle can be produced without a fundamental shift in class consciousness occurring. The bourgeois parameters that currently define contemporary Western society are the very limitations that P verses NP represent. Attempting to solve this riddle is nothing more than the bourgeoisie starring at its own naval, regardless of how much money is thrown at the problem. It is not money that will progress society, but rather the development of true class consciousness.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: