Science, Meta-physics and Trading

[Magister Ludi]

Quote from CalTrader:


Very little of it is mystical and most of it was the result of hard work, perseverance, and a bit of luck and political wrangling within the theory community at the time ....

I was not suggesting that quantum Mechanics is 'mystical', although I do fell that much of it is fancy philosophy written in a highly sophisticated mathematical language.

What I was suggesting, or rather stating, was that much of what they have 'discovered' in Atomic, Relativity and quantum theory are ideas that have been stated centuries ago in the Buhdist Sutras, Hindu Vedas, Heraclitus's 'Fragments', the I-Ching and especially Lao Tzu's - 'Tao Te Ching'. This is not just my opinion, this is/was the opinion of the four brilliant modern physicists that I mentioned in my first post.

You can take that anyway you would like, it is what it is, for me it just shows that there are many paths toward knowledge, and one can know something without devising a formula to know they know something.

While the paths that Bohr and Lao-tzu took were different, where they were attempting to go was essentially the same, and even more importantly what made them strive was exactly the same.

PEACE and good-trading CalTrader,
Commisso

 

[Magister Ludi]

Quote from harrytrader:

So what ? When I discovered my equations I couldn't do it by syllogism because syllogism is not enough - if so just take a Cray and the whole laws of Universe would be discovered mechanically - I have to IMAGINE FISRT: this stage is not Science because you can imagine everything but after you have to prove it and in the paths you will fail numerous times before finding something that you can prove SCIENTIFICALLY ! So don't mix the inspiration which can be anything with science ! I am not saying that Science has answer to everything, in fact I am saying the contrary: Science can't answer to every question SO YOU MUST NOT ASK SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY WHAT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE JUST TO MAKE BELIEVE IN YOUR MYSTIC THING WHICH I CONSIDER AS CHARLATANISM ! With time some ideas will be justified but you have to wait that time for it to become science.

Of course there can be advanced research or technologies that have been covered up like cinema techniques in the past (the Lumiere have been ridiculised for example, and it is said today by an ex-secret agent that cold fusion is also ridiculised so that people will not suspect that THERE IS IN FACT NO ENERGY PROBLEM AND THAT OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM IS A MANIPULATION !

Harrytrader,

I wish I could reply to you, but making sense of your posts is comparable to trying to catch sub-atomic particles with a fishing net...

 

[Saynt Chaosity]

Quote from Magister Ludi:



The greatest scientific minds of the 20th Century (Bohr, Oppenhiemer, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc.) all realized that essentialy what they were doing was refining ancient wisdom from both the east and the west.

Pick up a copy of Heraclitus (west) or Lao-Tzu (east) and then make a genuine, albeit laymen attempt to understand some of the concepts quantumn physics is 'bringing forth' and you will not be able to seperate the two.

PEACE and good-trading,
Commisso

ancient "wisdom" my ass. and just how did "they" arrive at this "ancient wisdom"? divine inspiration? perhaps they were born wise? or this 'wisdom" came to them in a dream? why do we bother with logic, rational thought, or scientific method...we got "ancient wisdom"! LMAO!!!

 

[alfonso]

Quote from Saynt Chaosity:




ancient "wisdom" my ass. and just how did "they" arrive at this "ancient wisdom"? divine inspiration? perhaps they were born wise? or this 'wisdom" came to them in a dream? why do we bother with logic, rational thought, or scientific method...we got "ancient wisdom"! LMAO!!!

Saynt,

It's a comlete misnomer to even call it "wisdom".

If anybody reading it can draw a different conclusions to what it means, then how does it qualify as "wisdom"?

Just because someone with a piece of real knowledge can in hindsight say, "Oh yeah, it [piece of knowledge] relates to Hinduism like this [x, y, z]", doesn't mean that the piece of knowledge itself is a refinement of the ancient gobbledygook; more than likely, they had nothing to do with each other.

I suspect that since elements of mysticism do serve to satisfy some common emotional needs among humans that these eminement scientists (quoted by Magister) simply tried to force a link to whatever branch of mystics they liked to satisfy their own emotional desires, rather than because of the glaring evidence that their work was an obvious refinement [of the their favorite mystic].

 

[alfonso]

Quote from harrytrader:

So what ? When I discovered my equations I couldn't do it by syllogism because syllogism is not enough - if so just take a Cray and the whole laws of Universe would be discovered mechanically - I have to IMAGINE FISRT: this stage is not Science because you can imagine everything but after you have to prove it and in the paths you will fail numerous times before finding something that you can prove SCIENTIFICALLY ! So don't mix the inspiration which can be anything with science ! I am not saying that Science has answer to everything, in fact I am saying the contrary: Science can't answer to every question SO YOU MUST NOT ASK SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY WHAT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE JUST TO MAKE BELIEVE IN YOUR MYSTIC THING WHICH I CONSIDER AS CHARLATANISM ! With time some ideas will be justified but you have to wait that time for it to become science.

Exactly.

Just because some postmodern feel-good mystics can draw analogies from modern science to ancient texts doesn't mean a damn thing!

 

[DT-waw]

Quote from Magister Ludi:

You can take that anyway you would like, it is what it is, for me it just shows that there are many paths toward knowledge, and one can know something without devising a formula to know they know something.

As always, excellent point Commisso. Sometimes I feel the only "science" useful in trading is some simple math and statistics + common sense.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from DT-waw:



As always, excellent point Commisso. Sometimes I feel the only "science" useful in trading is some simple math and statistics + common sense.

What?

Simple math and statistics are only "science" to you?

What then would be real science (without the " ") according to you?

 

[Magister Ludi]

Quote from alfonso:




Saynt,

It's a comlete misnomer to even call it "wisdom".

If anybody reading it can draw a different conclusions to what it means, then how does it qualify as "wisdom"?

Just because someone with a piece of real knowledge can in hindsight say, "Oh yeah, it [piece of knowledge] relates to Hinduism like this [x, y, z]", doesn't mean that the piece of knowledge itself is a refinement of the ancient gobbledygook; more than likely, they had nothing to do with each other.

I suspect that since elements of mysticism do serve some to satisfy some common emotional needs among humans that these eminement scientists (quoted by Magister) simply tried to force a link to whatever branch of mystics they liked to satisfy their own emotional desires, rather than because of the glaring evidence that their work was an obvious refinement [of the their favorite mystic].

Alfonso,

With all due respect, I think you are missing a glaring point -- Quantum, Atomic, Relativity, etc are theories, not much different than the philosophy to be found in that of say the Tao Te Ching, other then there is a complex mathematical language devised to explain them, and have been used to further our material advances.

But, to say that technology is the only benefit of modern science is to play down the fact that it has served to shatter many dogmatic beliefs on the nature of the universe and our place within it. The great scientist of the last century set out not only for our material benefits, but to understand and hopefully help harmonize with the nature of the universe. Bohr & Einstien walked a 'path with a heart' that was spiritualy charged by its very nature, so it is only natural that they brought us back to many ancient sages, because they were indeed our modern sages.

The means were obviously different, but to believe that what Budha and Einstein strove for were in opposition -- is naive and completely misses the point. You can also debate until you are blue in the face, that 'scientific method' and conceptual knowledge is the only means to 'know' something, but that will only serve to further perpetuate your ignorance and help you fit into the land of sleep walkers...

PEACE and good-trading,
Commisso

 

[DT-waw]

alfonso,
misunderstanding
I wanted to say, that only math and statistics (from all scientific areas) are really useful in trading. Psychology also. Of course, math is the real science. Quantum physics and chaos theory may explain market's nature, hmm maybe they can give you some ideas which you should take into an account to develop good trading strategy.

 

[WDGann]

Great thread...

But let's get back to trading...

Well, honestly... maybe we don't understand trading as much as we hope to...