Do you see patterns in Random Walks?
- Thread starter atlTrader666
- Start date
This is what I thought too. It's only when they are put on cans they can affect each other and then they synchronize. Off the cans, no interaction, they go back to no synchronization.
+1
Pure randomness theorist commit the notorious formal fallacy of asserting the consequence. See the true implication:
Random generator -> random patterns
Then if they see a pattern in market data they assert the consequence of the previous implication and they claim it must be from a random process.
I mean is such a typical formal fallacy but again so few people study logic in depth at schools. To study logic and understand it in depth you have to got to an expensive private school. Public schools don't have time and money for that. You get what you pay for.
"Yeah, I saw Jim carrying an umbrella. It must have been raining that day".
Typical statement of a fool who attended a cheap public school.
What does this have to do with what SunTrader posted?
I'm guessing the point of the metaphor is not that purely random processes [as random as a metronome can be, that is] will spontaneously synchronize. It's when conditions allow them to influence each other that stable patterns appear.
Much like the paradigm shift Darwin caused by positing that ordered systems can arise from chaos due to the relationships formed by their elements.
blahblah...chitchat...herd of PhD's discover groupthink/herding/ss of mechanical, biological (as in sororities), chaotical, feedback loop...blahblah...chitchat...blahblah...Francisco Franco...chitchat...blahblah.
Can we push forward?. Where is my cappuccino?.
Can we push forward?. Where is my cappuccino?.
Some common-sense responses:
It appears your initial position rests on the premise that the market is an infinitely complex system. Because an infinitely complex system is impossible to model and predict, determinism does not hold. It does not necessarily follow that randomness is the ontological basis of that system. It simply means the behaviors observed can be classified as random according to your your strict definition.
Also, it follows from your theory that all behavior, even when measured discretely, is infinitely complex -- a hypothesis that cannot be tested and has no value.
As a founding member of the Glitch Mob, intradaybill is correct in his point about affirming the consequent.
It appears your initial position rests on the premise that the market is an infinitely complex system. Because an infinitely complex system is impossible to model and predict, determinism does not hold. It does not necessarily follow that randomness is the ontological basis of that system. It simply means the behaviors observed can be classified as random according to your your strict definition.
Also, it follows from your theory that all behavior, even when measured discretely, is infinitely complex -- a hypothesis that cannot be tested and has no value.
As a founding member of the Glitch Mob, intradaybill is correct in his point about affirming the consequent.
Yes, and now I have trouble forecasting where the next step in the discussion will be. Not to disagree or object (that's not until I've heard the full positions and understand them), but it seems to me there is a contradiction or inconsistency:
Everything is random. The random parts interact and then influence each other. Then they spontaneously synchronize from that interaction to move in one direction over time. But synchronized movement over time would be a stable, somewhat predictable move, or possibly the concept of a "trend". But I don't know, maybe this process or contradiction is what we're looking for.