Perhaps we are speaking about different things? I thought you were referring to the physical sciences specifically, rather than just physical analogies generally. I'll readily go along with analogies, but I'm less convinced about using physics equations to explain human conduct. That's where it gets murky for me.
A Kinetic Energy Idea
- Thread starter MAESTRO
- Start date
Human behavior is too complex to model. Using physical analogies and math simply helps us to deal with this complexity. William Ross Ashby is the first scientist who embarked on such an approach systematically. You would be surprised how fruitful the world of analogies could be in trying to comprehend complex psychological phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ross_Ashby
Quote from gehko:
Your logic escapes me. I want you to throw out all of the things you know about the stock market every tick of every day because that is in the past and has no relevance on any future trading. Furthermore I want you to rip out your monitor and install a single LED in your computer so you can watch the binary bits flash by because everything you need to know will be presented to you in the manor by which the system sees it and therefore that is all you need.
Moving on, and as stated in my previous posts, i am not doing this for an edge or trading for that matter. I do binomial expansions out to my age in years every birthday for fun...i am sorry that you wasted your time trying to belittle something that proves nothing to you.
I think you completely misinterpreted the tone of my post -- it wasn't one of criticism, but rather mere conjectures and ponderings about the nature of this thread. I am rather enjoying the discussion that is going on. I think our fundamental disagreement would be over the point that the past has no bearing on the future -- but that is an argument for a different time -- but to sum up my position in one line: trades have durations.
What my intended point was in my post was that applying arbitrary models to a market must be coupled with a fundamental REASON as to why those models should correctly model the market and what it means when the market and model are out of sync. I was merely tossing around some concepts out loud, just to see if anything would stick. Just trying to raise some concerns that could be addressed which would only further solidify the fundamental theory underlying an indicator based on these concepts...nothing more.
Have no idea, but what the heck...
Fair enough. Analogies often help us to both explain and understand. As for me, when it comes to the markets, I'm not that creative or lateral thinking. I have basically just identified a single objective pattern that repeats itself with sufficient regularity for my purposes. (By "pattern" I do not mean triangles, wedgies or the like. It is much more basic and, in my experience, more reliable than that.) This pattern has no "real world" analogy that I can think of, and is limited to the confines of a price chart. In my opinion, it is quite basic/generic and so I am hopeful that it will endure.
Thanks, but you should see the ones that get away.Quote from MAESTRO:
It's called EXPERIENCE . And it is a corner stone of any applied research. You are very helpful. I always liked your down-to-earth remarks.