I agree. Langan does have some interesting views. I wonder if any of you actually read his position paper: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf. I further wonder if any of you understand it well enough to explain it to another person.
I see two problems in Mr. Langan's thinking, at first read:
1. He equates indeterminacy with acausality, and this position is fundamental to his logical construct of the universe. That is, he sees randomness as a logical impossibility -- therefore randomness must equate to magic.
2. Because he requires everything to have a deterministic answer, randomness cannot exist, because the concept is inherently illogical.
Regarding #1, magic is the creation of something from nothing. Randomness is not "nothing" -- it is the absence of absolute certainty. Therefore randomness is not magic -- randomness is perfectly logical, and can coexist in an otherwise logical universe.
Regarding #2, since randomness can logically exist, #2 is a false restriction on what the universe "is." Therefore, Langan's theory falls on it's own sword of required determinacy.
It's not surprising that someone who is as logically superior to others as Langan obviously is, would fail to recognize that something as seemingly illogical as randomness can logically exist.
But, the universe doesn't have to play by the laws we humans seek to impose on it. That is, science simply measures what it can and derives local principles under which we explain physical reality.
And, just because we define something as measurable in one place or circumstance, doesn't mean that the explanation must be universally consistent.
The simple reality that those who desire to impute an ultimate logic to the universe miss, is that randomness "exists" and there's no reason why it cannot.
Ironically, without randomness, we are all slaves of a huge universal machine which ultimately and predictably grinds away every moment of existence to a predetermined end. This seems to me a rather painful idea -- I prefer not to think of myself as without any possible control over my life. But, without randomness, this would be the ultimate truth.
Similarly, ironic is the fact that this website is dedicated to the professional trader, i.e., a person who is either (1) dedicated to finding an underlying pattern in the markets which will permit exploitation to a pecuniary advantage, or (2) dedicated to idea that the market is inherently unpredictable and therefore the only achievable advantage is to be found by either (a) moving the market via one's own capital and cunning, or (b) managing one's money by betting on the moments when probabilities appear favorable.
I will wager that above-described group #2 is the group of traders who earns a living, and that group #1 is the group of traders who finances #2's ability to earn a living.
And, what is really really ironic about this last observation, is that what I have just described is "nature red in tooth and claw."
You know, Darwinian survival of the fittest.
