Drawn to complexity?

murray t turtle · Nov 25, 2003

Simply put ;
helpful points written.

Green tea ,
red apples & leg of lamb have been medicaly proven better with out a bunch of complex junk eaten with them.

=====
Harrytrader & Milton Friedman made an important point in favor of the private sector.

However with
trees planted,
skilled government,
skilled private sector,
& add rain , desert can bloom like a rose.

harrytrader · Nov 25, 2003

Thanks for putting on the same chair than Friedman I feel so great suddenly

Quote from murray t turtle:

Simply put ;
helpful points written.

Green tea ,
red apples & leg of lamb have been medicaly proven better with out a bunch of complex junk eaten with them.

=====
Harrytrader & Milton Friedman made an important point in favor of the private sector.

However with
trees planted,
skilled government,
skilled private sector,
& add rain , desert can bloom like a rose.

harrytrader · Nov 25, 2003

just realised I forgot an essential part :

"What do we mean by complexity and its opposite, simplicity? It would take a great many concepts, a great many quantities to capture all the various meanings implicit in our use of the word complexity. But there is one concept - what I call effective complexity - that represents most closely what we usually mean in everyday conversation and also in scientific discourse when we use the word. A non-technical definition of effective complexity would be the length of a highly compressed description of the regularities of the entity under consideration. Compression - the elimination of redundancy - is very important; otherwise the length of the message would be of very little concern to us."

Quote from harrytrader:

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/13/article5/article5.html

Plectics: The study of simplicity and complexity

Murray Gell-Mann, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, USA [and Nobel Prize laureate]

The subject that I call plectics is the study of simplicity and complexity. At the Santa Fe Institute, which I helped to start, we deal to a great extent with matters of simplicity and complexity. I arrived at the name, plectics, in the following way. The word "complex" comes from plexus, originally meaning braided, and com-, meaning together, hence braided together. "Simple" comes in a similar way from roots meaning once folded; and the Latin words for "braided" and "folded" both owe their ultimate origin to the Indo-European root *plek-. In Greek, that root gives rise to plektos, meaning braided. So, in using the word plectics we are describing the subject of simplicity and complexity without committing ourselves as to whether we are talking about something simple (once folded) or something complex (braided together).

[...]

Apparent and effective complexities
Take, for example, the energy levels of atomic nuclei. The rules for those energy levels look, at first sight, as if they are very complicated, but we now believe that they are obtained from a couple of simple physical theories: quantum electrodynamics (the quantum field theory of electromagnetic interactions) and quantum chromodynamics (the quantum field theory of quarks and gluons). We believe that if you put these two together you will get a description of atomic nuclei in great detail, including the positions of all their energy levels. But the computations are extremely long and difficult on our existing computers, using known methods, and most of them havenÂ¹t even been done yet. So here is a case where we are looking at something apparently complex that has in fact low effective complexity, but a lot of logical depth. In other words, a short program is involved, but that program is associated with a very long computation time.

harrytrader · Nov 27, 2003

See also Re: Macro-Evolutionary Theory is filled with holes
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=378284#post378284

I've made both Bio and Petroleum Engineering schools so I had a deep cursus with Evolutionary Theory from Embriology to Genetics and Geo-techtonics (creation of planet Earth)

. The problem is not really there. The problem is that Evolutionary Theory is not enough to explain the probability of appearance of life of even the most ridiculous organism that is a virus with only 40 strings in ARN. So there should be something else and this something can involve a more deterministic process than pure randomness of Evolution and if one believe Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html

"One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay
Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are
thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual
shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there
are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.

In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few
robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms
available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destinyâand
Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural
selection is not all that important."

The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper patternâan
underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well:
"Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get
made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer.
" He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
understand it, it's actually very simple."

It's very similar to Stock Market problematic in fact where official theory pretends that Randomness of multiple agents which compete among them - Evolutionary theory - dictates Market Behavior whereas I affirm, through my model that it is an illusion, that there is a deterministic process that is not due to the multiple agents (I mean the MAJORITY of course that there are SOME agents that makes the market behaves like it behaves but it is not those officially theory focus upon). And to explain that I use in fact a genetic metaphore see Plectics: "The study of simplicity and complexity"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

and
"Information packing, transcription and alternative splicing"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752

P.S.: nevetheless my model is not based on GENETIC MODELLING - it is based on ECONOMIC MODELLING - so it is only ressemblance of form with genetic, that is to say a sort of meta-fractality in modelisation.

Quote from aphexcoil:

In our biology classes, we were taught the theory of evolution and how it works in our world. Evolution, according to Darwin, consists of such terms as "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," and "selective mutations" that basically mean that species will "evolve" and change to forms that are better equipped to master their environment.

Well, I decided to look a little deeper into evolutionary theory and I was amazed to discover something very curious. When evolution is broken down, you have micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I will concur that a baby will inherit traits from both parents and that, in a small way, is a form of micro-evolution in process.

However, how much evidence exists to collaborate the theory of macro-evolution? How many fossils have we found to connect us with apes and chimps? How many "bridge fossils" have we found for major species change among other animals? Absolutely none!

Then consider this:

It seems a bit odd to me that so many scientists have embraced evolution yet ignored some very important problems with it -- especially macro-evolution.

I'm not suggestion that evolution isn't a possible theory to fit the observable world, but I just find it odd that any theory would have such weight attached to it when there is such a lack of observable evidence for it.

nononsense · Nov 27, 2003

Quote from bungrider:

trends

bungrider,

thank you so much for telling us this.
For those of you not fully conversant with trends, you can get wise reading the "Trendiness of Days - assigning a value" thread.

Good trends to you all,

nononsense

agrau · Nov 27, 2003

Quote from harrytrader:

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/13/article5/article5.html

Plectics: The study of simplicity and complexity
[...] [some typical harrytrader stuff deleted

Gee, Harry, how do you come up with all this stuff all the time? Measuring band to cup size of you brain (http://www.pumpstation.com/frmBraSize-1.cfm) you must have a 12-ZZZ (12-True-Brain - ZZZ-Show-Brain). I meant to express your ratio of own-invented (12) stuff to copy-&-pasted (ZZZ) noise. (edited: if you consider your own stuff big, imagine how big the c&p stuff appears to me

)

But still, I am truly, honestly and constantly surprised about all this information and other factoids (sic!) you dig out somewhere.

A+

Andreas

P.S. I prefer 36-C in real life - shall we start a poll ?

Could be another, not yet available, indicator for the quants on board

harrytrader · Nov 28, 2003

What's your problem exactly with this article because you're right my brain's size doesn't allow me to understand your perplexity about it ? Since you said here http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=365332#post365332

'What I found rather interesting in this thread is the distinction made between "indicator" and "data". To me, the values generated by a generator or algorithm, say, RSI are just "data" until interpreted to give an "indication". Still I would like to hear your definition.'

Is it that this article is just data for you and cannot be interpreted by your brain as valuable information ?

I'm sorry that such article written by a Nobel Prize is out of reach for you but I thought that he was very readible and pedagogical enough to be very understandable by anybody except a few ones perhaps like you. Forgive me then

.

Quote from agrau:

Gee, Harry, how do you come up with all this stuff all the time? Measuring band to cup size of you brain (http://www.pumpstation.com/frmBraSize-1.cfm) you must have a 12-ZZZ (12-True-Brain - ZZZ-Show-Brain). I meant to express your ratio of own-invented (12) stuff to copy-&-pasted (ZZZ) noise. (edited: if you consider your own stuff big, imagine how big the c&p stuff appears to me )

But still, I am truly, honestly and constantly surprised about all this information and other factoids (sic!) you dig out somewhere.

A+

Andreas

P.S. I prefer 36-C in real life - shall we start a poll ? Could be another, not yet available, indicator for the quants on board