Sci, Meta, and Trading 2: Philosophy and Trading

Quote from freealways:

>>hmmm do you really think those two little particles can help you trade better<<

Stop ruining this thread Long(on rubbish)Short(on brains).

If you really want to know the answer I suggest you ask your
learned friend Saynt.

I will now place you on 'Ignore' so you can stop bothering sending some more of your annoying ignorant posts.

freealways
More...

i'm not asking saynt, i'm asking YOU! it's your comment not sayn't's!

you seem to be getting at (although admittedly the LONG way around starting with sub-atomic particles) !!{:D he heh}that you want to influence the price of EBAY for example just by thinking it. RUBBISH i say! Complete and udder rubbish!!
 
Quote from freealways:

Is there someone around better skilled in physics who may be able to correct my memory of a particular physics experiment I read about and who is able to go into better detail ?
The particular physics experiment I am referring to involved a particle being shot at another particle and the collission caused the second particle to split up (??). The newly created particle was sometimes visible as an object and sometimes as an energy wave.
My recollection is that we were told that the involvement of the experimenter as an observer (standing outside the sealed glass container in which the experiment took place) contributed to the particular outcome by the mere fact of his observation (??).
Sorry if this sounds like gobblethegook, I am not a physicist.
freealways
More...

I am not sure about the experiment as you describe it, but the observation affecting outcome sounds like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In order to determine a particle's position and/or velocity (eg: an electron) one must "shoot" another particle or wave at it. By doing so one disturbs the position/velocity of the particle. This is not a problem with radar guns and cars (velocity) or light waves and chairs (position) because the difference in scale between the measurer and the measuree. However, this degree of difference is not found on the sub-atomic level and thus, the disturbance. Heisenberg's principle states that the knowledge of velocity and position of a particle are inversely related, and that neither can be known absolutely.
I hope this helps, I too am not a physicist.

This principle does have some bearing on the markets. One can, for example, test a system and find it profitable on static data and then, because of an illiquid market, find the strategy fails when applied to real-time trading. This would be due as a result of the relationship between capital input and market liquidity. This is not perfectly analogous, but there is a similarity.
 
Quote from freealways:

LongShot said : "this is ridiculous for god sakes how in the world will you ever connect this to trading?"

Glad you asked LongShot.

What makes this experiment interesting is the implication that an independant observer could have an influence in the outcome of an independant event.

Now if that is not relevant then nothing is.

freealways
More...


freealways,

will you bend a spoon too with your mental powers. i like that.
 
Gann,

I'll start a seperate thread with something a little more "Eastern". I'm out of my league with most of this.


Pabst
 
Quote from freealways:

Is there someone around better skilled in physics who may be able to correct my memory of a particular physics experiment I read about and who is able to go into better detail ?

The particular physics experiment I am referring to involved a particle being shot at another particle and the collission caused the second particle to split up (??). The newly created particle was sometimes visible as an object and sometimes as an energy wave.

My recollection is that we were told that the involvement of the experimenter as an observer (standing outside the sealed glass container in which the experiment took place) contributed to the particular outcome by the mere fact of his observation (??).


Sorry if this sounds like gobblethegook, I am not a physicist.


freealways
More...

I am not sure exactly what experiment you are referring to here, but there is something you must understand about the scientific & philosophical nature of Quantum Theory at the sub-atomic level. They are not setting out or overly concerned with explaining 'what is', but what we say 'what is' and how we experience 'what is'...

As an example; When light is measured through the 'double-split' experiment it is manifested in a 'wave-like' manner, but when measured in the 'Compton Scattering' it is manifested in a 'particle like' manner. This apparent wave-particle duality of light is not representative of what is, but representative of how we measure, interact, and experience what is...

We are shaping 'it' as 'it' is shaping us, and this imo is the beauty of Quantum Theory at a philosophical level AND has everything to do with the game we play. Are we trading her or us; or a jumbled up combo of both...

To draw from a brilliant artist that intuitively sensed this 'strange loop' inherent in human consciousness...

drawing_hands.gif


PEACE and good-trading,
Commisso
 
Quote from LongShot:




freealways,

will you bend a spoon too with your mental powers. i like that.
More...

Ever wonder what life would be like if the speed of light was 186 miles per second instead of 186,000. You would be in a constant mescaline trip, well at least for the first 30 days or so and then this world would become the mescaline trip, but anyway...

Imagine driving in your car and it stretches and contracts the faster or slower you go, the clock on the dashboard moves faster and slower as you increase speed, everything you pass would be indistinguishable big blobs of blurry goobledygook...

Now imagine how screwed we'd all be if some were born experiencing light at 186 and some at 186k, or if each person just got a fib ratio in sequence until it hit one 186k and then it reverted back to one. Everyones perception of the outside objective world would differ from the others...

Sorry don't mind me its late and I'm bored and I just read "Through the Looking Glass"....
 
It is ridiculous because you can't rationally make a connection between Quantum Physics which concerns MICROSPIC LEVEL and Market Behaviour which concerns MACROSCOPIC LEVEL. If so you could relate easily atomics law with biological law.

Now as I said in scientific research there is a stage that is not scientific which has to do with inspiration and imagination. And it is true that many takes their inspiration from metaphysical ideas. But it is not science at this stage, you have to demonstrate it, that is to say show every causal link that relate one level to the next and there can be a huge amount of causal links necessary to do so that is why there are researchers that still work to do so like Elderman :D

A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...0238733/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-2514935-9306435

Once you have demonstrated the links then you can say that it follows the same law in microscopic scale and macroscopic scale. That's why when I hear that Market's law follow golden law because Human brains are attracted by the aesthetic of this ratio this is ridiculous.

And as I have done my own research yes there is golden ratio in stock market but it has nothing to do with the cause above ! As I said my model does NOT presuppose Golden ratio; it is afterwards that I calculate the ratio of outputs from my model and observe golden ratios. More there is a very strange behavior I called Feyman-like effect which I talk briefly about on my guide:

"- Feynman (like) effect

Our model is not based on a physical analogy but on fundamental of micro-economics. Nevertheless, it exhibits strange behaviors like the one we call Feyman effect because of its ressemblance with what happens in Quantum Mechanics.

Bases and projections in the future have influence on the present. Prices follow paths on past and future projections simultaneously and on different scales. This creates complexities in patterns."

The term "like" (in Feynman (like) effect
) should rather be in BOLD because it is just an anology discovered AFTERWARDS and not a priori injected in the model as input.

It seems as very abstract with no real application to trading but I could show the very real impact on daytrading. I can do it for example when I will talk about version 3 of Buggit :D

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16138&perpage=6&pagenumber=2


Quote from LongShot:




this is ridiculous for god sakes how in the world will you ever connect this to trading? :confused:
More...
 
Now for practical day-to-day living or trading you would say "I don't need any demonstration since my esoteric stuff works". Yes you're right if things repeat why bother ? In fact the second stage in scientific research after the first one (inspiration phase) is to see if things repeat. In "physical science" the criteria of repetition are easy, it is more difficult in other areas like social research or economical research. Nevertheless it is not impossible to have some certainty by statistical test to see if something is real or not. And so some mathematicians or econophysicians have looked at supposed existence of Fibonacci ratios and confirm that they exist but they can't find any RATIONAL EXPLANATION. That's why the esoteric explanation has replaced this lack and disguised it as scientific by saying that it was studied by Fibonacci a mathematician in 13th century :D. So it is a fact that they are present (or at least it can be statiscally proved by academics - I don't talk about others that never studied the fact and affirm that it cannot be) but that there is no known explanation (except mine but I'm not an academician my opinion doesn't count :) ). You can trade with that without referring to absurd causal theory or false justification.

Now a true scientific theory permits progress. Einstein law is more precise than Newton's law. With only Newton we wouldn't have nuclear electricity. Before Carnot's concept of Entropy technicians were already building machines ... but they were not performant at all and explode without explanation. Afer Carnot Industrial progress has been possible which is the origin of our modern area. So a true market model can explain things that Traditional TA cannot explain and be more precise. It doesn't mean traditional ta should be abandoned, nobody abandoned Newton's law in spite of Einstein's law, it mean in some cases it can be worth to use the more precise law.
 
I think the reason why QM attracts so many esoteric people (I say that not because of this post but because I have seen many astrologers on forums pretending having studied Quantum Mechanics and connect it with their "science" wharf) is because of the Heinsenberg Incertitude Principle in connection with randomness and free will (at the same time they believe in Astrology which is completely opposite if I am not misinterpreting Astrology principle (?) if planets direct us where would free will be ? ).

The problem is that Randomness could just be a postulat :

http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node58.html

"
Locality and quantum mechanics / Realistic theories and randomness


There is no mathematical model for irreducible probabilities. There is not even a mathematically definition of a random number sequence. There are sequences that are recursively random. Loosely speaking this means that no recursive process can do better than chance at guessing the next element in the sequence. The problem with recursively random sequences is that they are more complex than any recursive sequence. If somehow one could generate such a sequence one could use it to solve recursively unsolvable problems.

This suggests that a truly random sequence cannot exist. Any sequence that we would consider to be truly random must be recursively random. Otherwise there is some computer program that can guess with some degree of accuracy the elements in the sequence. Yet no recursive random sequence can be truly random. This presents a philosophical problem for the claim that quantum mechanics is truly random.

The randomness claimed for quantum mechanics has no foundation in mathematics and it appears to be impossible to construct such a foundation. This does not make it wrong but suggests there are problems in our existing conceptual framework. It also means that physicists when arguing about these issues are debating philosophy with no objective way of deciding the issue. My prejudice is with Einstein. I do not see a need to go beyond conventional logic or mathematics. I only see a problem with developing a better theory."
 
If I was a girl, I would be a slut...

If I was a dog, I would be humping people's leg all the time...

If I was a cat, I would climb a tree and get trapped without a way down.

If I was a fish, I would be caught and most likely become someone's dinner tonight....

If I was Godzilla, I would attack Chicago rather than NYC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top