Science, Meta-physics and Trading

Quote from rlb21079:



I've been following this thread and think I may finally have some thoughts of value:

The goal of science is to make predictions, create mathematical explanations of "reality," and prove itself by way of repetitive experiment. The goal of trading is to make money by making predictions, create mathematical explanations of the market (for some), and prove oneself by way of repetitive profit. The qualitative aspects of both science and trading are, in a sense, a failure in understanding. In other words, what one can not make formula (quantitative) one hopes they can respond to in a qualitative manner.

The question seems to me to be whether one must take the fuzzier aspects of their trading style and devise a complex program by which the system may be applied or whether one should focus these "fuzzy" aspects into simpler, more quantitative rules of trade. One could also, ignore such matters. But, I think this latter option would leave one open to their own potentially denigrative emotional input and prevent the development of trading ideas.

In science there are many simple explanations of "reality" which work very well - e.g. the acceleration of gravity=9.8 m/s2 - in many very practical ways, but that fall apart when circumstances change - e.g. one leaves the earth's gravitational field. The same I think applies to trading. One must adapt to these changing circumstances in some way or else their predictions will begin erring very greatly, very quickly.

Simple or Complex?
Designing a model to describe reality no matter how simple, is not easy. The yin and yang, so to speak, of this problem is that the more simple the model the easier it is to build, but the less applicable it becomes, and thus the more it must be adapted; the more comlex the model, the more difficult it is to build but the greater applicability it has, and thus the less it need be adapted.

Choosing the best path depends upon one's ability to compensate for the "drawbacks" of either approach. My mathematical prowess, though sufficient for most things, falls well short of PhD, what a theoretical physicist would require. Often when I get stuck in trying to transfer what is in my head onto paper, I doodle. Sometimes I find myself devising some cleverly descriptive pictorial representations of my ideas, often not but sometimes. I must cut this short so as to make a living...enjoy!
-rlb
More...

That's the difference between an analyst and a trader.

Good Trade

Trend
 
Quote from marketsurfer:




gann,

yes. trading is application, market analysis is thought/ creation/ formulation of perspective. excellent post !

best,

surfer:)
More...

Agree..

Most people miss out on this.

Good trade.

Trend
 
Quote from Saynt Chaosity:




wrong (again).

MATHEMATICS "told" Einstein he was "right". "imagination" simply gave him direction and fodder for his computations. MATHEMATICS!
More...

Saynt,

Wrong... Mathematics gave Einstien a way to express his theory and perform countless experiments to support his case, but the only 'science' that can be taken as absolute fact is arrived at through falsification, which general relativity theory was not.

It might very well turn out that a 150yrs from now Bilbo Baggins will make a convincing case that the C in E=MCsquared is really 186,001 or when we finaly find one of Hawkings 'black holes' light dosent even travel, who knows ---- won't make Einstein any less 'right', but will just show that his map of the territory was off.

Essentialy what we have here are sages such as Budha and LaoTzu stating centuries ago that Time/Space are inseperable and relative / the western world for centuries adopting the greek view of geometry set forth by Euclid and Plato being inherent in nature itself and not imposed upon by the realm of thought / Newton building upon this with his theories / the eastern world calling shit on it and totaly rejecting it to explain eternal truths of the universe (but make no mistake they definately made use of it for their material advances) / Einstein coming through and shattering the theories that the western world accepted as 'absolute' ------> which leads us right back to what these 'crack pots' as you would call them were saying all along...

Relativity Theory in simple terms showed that the way we percieve space-time was a matter of consciousness and not neccesarily absolute in the outside objective world -- now I ask you, if these ancient sages devised methods to travel up and down the MANY rungs on the ladder of consciousness, then why is it so hard to accept that they were able to arrive at these truths by other means than 'sceintific method'?

Now, I can understand that a dim wit such as yourself cannot accept arriving at a 'truth' by any other means than 'rational thought' 'deductive reasoning' etc etc, its not your fault that this folly has been embeded into your brain cells, not your fault that you are 1/2 asleep in frog pajams, your sleep walking man - but you can always wake up...

AND if you insist on trying to insult people on this thread at least read a book or two man and have at least a lil of that 'knowledge' - learning won't breed understanding, but at least you won't sound like a putz anymore...

good luck, you have been the first to reach the Ludi Magisters ignore list -- CONGRATS

War, Sickness and Piss-poor trading,
Commisso
 
Quote from limitdown:



so, how is this relevant, even by a stretch, relevant to trading or these discussion boards?
More...

It was said that dead fish do not talk. That link was proof that dead fish do indeed talk. How is this relevant to trading? I suppose that dead traders do not talk. But when I read the writings of Gann or Hurst, these dead traders are indeed talking to me, imparting their knowledge to the next generation of traders who are willing to listen. I suppose the relevancy pertains to the metaphysical in this case.

PTR
 
>>first of all, it is likely there is no God. (absence of proof)<<

Absence of proof isn't proof that God doesn't exist.

A simple argument that a Creator exists could run as follows :

If you were to find a watch lying on the street would you say that it has just happened to be created by accident, by circumstances or that someone made it ?

If your reply is that 'it just happened', then there is of course nowhere for us to go.

If however your reply is affirmative then the next thing to do is to have a look at the world around us and ask yourself 'has all this just happed to fall together or was there some intelligence responsible for the design ?'.


>>two, if there is a God why would he need or want to talk thru a fish, dead or alive?<<

Saynt, the issue isn't whether God would want to talk or want to talk through a dead fish but whether it is possible (if not likely).


freealways
 
Quote from Magister Ludi:



Saynt,

Essentialy what we have here are sages such as Budha and LaoTzu stating centuries ago that Time/Space are inseperable and relative / the western world for centuries adopting the greek view of geometry set forth by Euclid and Plato being inherent in nature itself and not imposed upon by the realm of thought / Newton building upon this with his theories / the eastern world calling shit on it and totaly rejecting it to explain eternal truths of the universe (but make no mistake they definately made use of it for their material advances) / Einstein coming through and shattering the theories that the western world accepted as 'absolute' ------> which leads us right back to what these 'crack pots' as you would call them were saying all along...
More...

Budha and LaoTzu didn't have a clue as to what the hell they were talking about. They spout tons of crap and some of it sticks..big deal. Funny how you remember just their bs that you can twist and distort enough to find modern truths. lol



Relativity Theory in simple terms showed that the way we percieve space-time was a matter of consciousness and not neccesarily absolute in the outside objective world -- now I ask you, if these ancient sages devised methods to travel up and down the MANY rungs on the ladder of consciousness, then why is it so hard to accept that they were able to arrive at these truths by other means than 'sceintific method'?[/B]
More...

their "rungs of consciousness" as you so ineptly put it are total BS until the proofs arrive. a figment of their over active and simple minded imaginations. the mere thought or idea doesn't make it true or valid or real. totally unreliable "knowledge" awaiting verification through modern methods of inquiry. don't make their incoherent ramblings out to be more than it is --dreams, wishes, and hopes.



Now, I can understand that a dim wit such as yourself cannot accept arriving at a 'truth' by any other means than 'rational thought' 'deductive reasoning' etc etc, its not your fault that this folly has been embeded into your brain cells, not your fault that you are 1/2 asleep in frog pajams, your sleep walking man - but you can always wake up...[/B]
More...

those methods are a helluva lot more reliable and efficacious than you and your old-age gurus just dreaming something up while stoned one night. where do your "truths" come from --the John?? or maybe the end of a BONG. HA!

AND if you insist on trying to insult people on this thread at least read a book or two man and have at least a lil of that 'knowledge' - learning won't breed understanding, but at least you won't sound like a putz anymore...[/B]
More...

"learning won't breed understanding" -bwhaha what good is learning when you're born with The Wisdom like you ..right? bwhahaha!!
 
Quote from freealways:

>>first of all, it is likely there is no God. (absence of proof)<<

Absence of proof isn't proof that God doesn't exist.

A simple argument that a Creator exists could run as follows :

If you were to find a watch lying on the street would you say that it has just happened to be created by accident, by circumstances or that someone made it ?

If your reply is that 'it just happened', then there is of course nowhere for us to go.

If however your reply is affirmative then the next thing to do is to have a look at the world around us and ask yourself 'has all this just happed to fall together or was there some intelligence responsible for the design ?'.


>>two, if there is a God why would he need or want to talk thru a fish, dead or alive?<<

Saynt, the issue isn't whether God would want to talk or want to talk through a dead fish but whether it is possible (if not likely).


freealways
More...

Carl Sagan once said -"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In the case of God (an extra-extraordinary claim) LACK of evidence IS proof of his non-existence. Such a being would leave more tell-tale signs of His existence. But the lack of the same strongly suggests He is anther figment of man's over active imagination (and under active critical thinking skills.)

Your "simple argument" from design (and i would agree with the word SIMPLE) has been refuted many times over. It doesn't hold water, and it is not compelling.

ANYTHING is possible with God, and for that very reason GOD is an IMPOTENT model for explaining and understanding the universe.
 
Quote from DT-waw:

daniel_m those quotes from famous people talking about religion are really great.

Look what Homer Simpson has to say: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/homer.htm
:D

Frank Zappa: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm

I disagree with your statement "Budha and LaoTzu didn't have a clue as to what the hell they were talking about"
More...

thanks. that frank zappa site is precious! :D


ps what i meant was that BS more often than not masquerades as "wisdom" and "knowledge". Budha might have thought it but that doesn't make it a "truth" or "right" in and of itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top