------------------------------------------
i am still thinking......................... (very good post, thankx)
the markets are a combination of randomness and trading patterns, price is random until the pattern apears.
Do you see patterns in Random Walks?
- Thread starter atlTrader666
- Start date
i am still thinking......................... (very good post, thankx)
the markets are a combination of randomness and trading patterns, price is random until the pattern apears.
Argument #5
Econophysics Research in Victor Yakovenko's group conclusively shows the reason for RANDOMNESS.
Please take a look at his various findings at:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/
Look at his ASTONISHING models of money distribution and Wealth Distribution. His works explain what none of the economists could ever understand - Rise and Fall of economical systems. We are now witnessing one of the most powerful collapse of the money system predicted and explained by Victor Yakovenko through his RANDOM models.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/animation-1.avi
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/animation-2.avi
These revelations are the most important achievements of this century!
Cheers,
MAESTRO
Econophysics Research in Victor Yakovenko's group conclusively shows the reason for RANDOMNESS.
Please take a look at his various findings at:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/
Look at his ASTONISHING models of money distribution and Wealth Distribution. His works explain what none of the economists could ever understand - Rise and Fall of economical systems. We are now witnessing one of the most powerful collapse of the money system predicted and explained by Victor Yakovenko through his RANDOM models.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/animation-1.avi
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/animation-2.avi
These revelations are the most important achievements of this century!
Cheers,
MAESTRO
Fascinating. Thanks for posting.
One line in one of the abstracts caught my eye as being particularly relevant to our current economic environment:
"When debt is permitted, it destabilizes the system, unless some sort of limit is imposed on maximal debt. "
It would be great if mainstream economists starting considering economic models like these (and Austrian models) which actually model debt instead of completely leaving it out of the equation and assuming it is irrelevant, which is what the ridiculously simplistic & irrelevant econometric models currently used by Keynesians do.
One line in one of the abstracts caught my eye as being particularly relevant to our current economic environment:
"When debt is permitted, it destabilizes the system, unless some sort of limit is imposed on maximal debt. "
It would be great if mainstream economists starting considering economic models like these (and Austrian models) which actually model debt instead of completely leaving it out of the equation and assuming it is irrelevant, which is what the ridiculously simplistic & irrelevant econometric models currently used by Keynesians do.
Victor M. Yakovenko:
1987:
Ph. D. in Theoretical Physics from the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, supervisor: Prof. L. P. Gor'kov.
1984 - 1987:
Graduate student at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics.
1984:
Diploma (M. S.) of the Moscow Physical-Technical Institute, supervisor: Prof. S. A. Brazovskii.
1978 - 1984:
Student at the Moscow Physical-Technical Institute.
I am simply not going to take advice about economics from a guy who studied physics during Soviet Russia.
Besides, I do not see how econophysics says that the world is random. It is a modeling tool. You can model deterministic processes as random if you wish. This is what statistical mechanics does. But this does answer the questions about randomness.
Thanks for the links! Other good stuff on subordination and SABR. I've done research on the changes of the distribution of returns for groups of equities and have found that when volatility increase the cross variance of returns is smaller than "nontrending" periods. I guess this is within the realm of sync. I'd be curious to see research on other less accessible parts of the market.
Please continue. I love to read your posts.
Thanks,
PT
Please continue. I love to read your posts.
Thanks,
PT
I have always respected other people's points of view in terms of their fundamental philosophical believes regardless of their background and where those people have spent their childhood. Victor's points of view and his models are accepted, shared and embraced by many leading US, Canadian and European scientists. His abilities to gain a "fresh" and incredibly bright perspective onto the fundamental forces that drive the money and wealth distribution processes may be a result of him never being "polluted" with somewhat "dogmatic" western education system.
As I mentioned in many of my previous posts MY PERSONAL beliefs could be summarized as following:
RANDOMNESS AT LARGE IS NOT JUST A METHOD OF MODELING THE REALITY AND IT IS NOT A MEASURE OF OUR IGNORANCE OR OUR DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING THINGS - IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF MATTER (SIMILAR TO GRAVITY) THAT EXHIBITS ITSELF ON ANY LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY INCLUDING HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Of course, there are other points of view that I respect, however, to me personally it is a corner stone of my perception of the reality.
Despite bill's behavior indicating he's only here for the ad hom punchline, I still agree with him.
Leaving aside potential explanations of quantum mechanics experiments, I think this fundamental premise is assumed rather than argued, partly for the reasons I threw out earlier in the thread. It has interesting and fascinating potential, but my own personal take on the ontology of randomness remains unchanged. Of course, I haven't yet cracked any of the texts you two gentlemen have put forward, so take that with a grain of salt.
I understand and respect that. However, there is a few very powerful and extremely useful implications of accepting the randomness as a necessary and objective component of life. If we, for example, did not believe that gravity is a universal property of matter we could not make progress in many fields of technology. The same happens with randomness. Once you accept a premise of its universality there are significant advantages in terms of understanding and predicting behavioral patterns observed in the markets. The most powerful of them is the new form of Galton's regression law that exist regardless of so called "free will" of traders.
AFAIK not Newton, not even Einstein believed gravity is a fundamental property of matter. It is just a phenomenon. It appears that you place to much emphasis on things like properties and you believe nature must have some. But all you are looking at are plain phenomena and your starting foundation seems too shaky on that basis.