jonathan <maatschj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a9YGj.26614$r76.18353@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:VPmGj.42721$D_3.39303@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> Sorry, but I snipped most of the arrogant sarcasm.
Must have been tough to edit your own stuff...
Why so tense, dude, "system" not working so well today?
> >> ...when any system is persistantly poised at the union or edge
between
> >> it's opposite extemes in possibility,
> >
> > Minima and maxima are always zero and infinity, respectively...right?
> As to your question above, that is true only for the Dark Age
> mathematics you obviously religiously follow.
"Dark Age"? A casual but reasonably knowledgeable reader
would recognize a reference to ideas published by Newton, as
the part of the Age of En"Light"enment...
> I feel as though
> I'm talking to someone from the eighteenth century.
No sarcasm for you, just straight-up insults...
> In the 'real world', not the merely self consistant dream world
> of the blackboard, but in nature there are always /two/ minimums
> and /one/ maximum. Your mistake couldn't be more basic.
TWO minimums, and I'm the one who's making mistakes?
> And your instinctive, not rational, search for precision and
repeatability
> is no more a sign of intelligence than watching a moth fly towards a
flame.
My "flame" is the truth, and you betcha ass I'm flyin' towards it
at sub-light speed...
> Albert Einstein has stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics
> refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
> are certain, they do not refer to reality."
But what did he say about the bees?
> So of course, even a child could see that your search for certainty
> has nothing at all to do with grasping how the real world works.
I've always stressed that you can NEVER be certain about
the stock market or any number of chaotic processes, so I'm
not sure who you're talking to, maybe the last guy who laughed
at you, and you're just la****ng out at the world in general...
> And in fact defines exactly the wrong way.
Oh my, I'm afeared I've defined "night" and "day" incorrectly,
as well...
> You wor****p what matters the /very least/ in understanding reality.
ALL HAIL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY!!!
> And for one very simple reason.
Yeah, I know, cuz I'm a dumbass...sorry to have wasted your time,
and all the other geniuses I've met on Usenet...
> Can we agree on one point alone?
Probably not...but let's see...
> That market systems, for instance, seem to have the ability to
> self tune.
No. I've already explicitly (and consistently and always) rejected
a general notion of some magical ability of the markets to "balance"
themselves...as always, I'm willing to entertain THOUGHTFUL
REASONS why they may IN SOME CASES AT SOME TIMES
"balance" themselves...
> They tend to build all kinds of feedback mechanisms
> and so on that cause such a system to move towards efficiency
> and creativity over time.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...man are you a "newbie",
and if you persist in your "thought" about "market efficiency", you'll
NEVER "get it"...
> As do living systems. They evolve
> over time to higher forms given half a chance.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Opposable thumbs may allow a monkey to post to Usenet, but
does not imply a higher life form at all...
> Can we agree on that simple assertion?
NO!!!! I SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT I REJECT CRAP LIKE
THAT!!!! DO YOU HAVE THE READING COMPREHENSION
OF A HUMAN OR A MONKEY??!??!!
> The properties that cause such complex systems to evolve to the
> optimum are these self tuning feedback mechanisms.
> And these properties are....emergent. They only exist as a
> collective property, when the system is in motion.
And maybe they don't exist at all!
> The very minute you stop such a real world system in order to 'detail'
> it's components, those ethereal emergent system properties VANISH
> into thin air.
I NEVER stop anything, I always let it run whereever it wants...criminy,
MY market analysis starts hundreds of years ago and runs to the current
day EVERY DAY, EVERY NEW DAY IS A NEW "MARKET"...
> You cannot detail emergent properties, you cannot
> count them, weigh them equate them or even prove they exist.
Like fairies?
> But we know such collective properties exist. We see them every day.
I've never seen a fairy, but I thought I saw the hand of God in every
thing in this life...until I read Usenet, and realized THERE IS NO GOD!!!
> And more im****tantly, it's these emergent system properties, such
> as evolution and public opinion and ideas and philosophies that
> do more to shape our reality than any fundamental force or
> equation of state.
Well, yeah, so what's your point?
> Show me the equations that precisely define all those ethereal
> market forces everyone talks about.
Well, "Jack Hershey" used to claim he had "equations" that
predicted the stock market, but it turned out he didn't know the
meaning of the word "equation".
I myself have ONCE AGAIN consistently, repeatedly, and always
stated that there are NO "equations" to describe market behavior...but
I get the feeling I'm talking to someone who has the same problem
with semantics as "Jack Hershey", because at NO POINT have I
ever talked about "equations"...
> Where can I go buy one
> or two of those forces?
Well, the forces are "fear" and "greed": "fear" of not making enough
money, and the "greed" of not wanting to lose any money. You don't
have to buy these forces, they've been instilled in you by a combination
of natural instinct and our monetary/capitalist system...
> Show me how large they are.
Well, they're pretty big, in the many $trillions world-wide...but
of course, the $trillions are just current societal proxies for primal
instincts...
> If I dropped one on my foot, how much would it hurt?
If you lose all your money, you'll have to sleep in the park
until young toughs set you on fire, and that'll hurt...
> If I write a really good poem, and ten people throw themselves
> into a river as a result, show me equations that explain that?
Man, how many people would die if you wrote a BAD poem...
> And how the world was changed by that poem, or a good
> book or the Mona Lisa. Show me the initial conditions for sadness
> or wars.
I warned you not to toy with me about psychology...since you are
clearly a "borderline personality", I won't answer the question...
> Simplify a sunset.
Newton did that. In the "Dark Age".
> What's the equation for a cloud
> ...a pedestrian cloud. Which gives and takes life so regularly.
God, before you started posting about "complexity theory", did
you ever think to read one book about "chaos theory"? Or did you
just not understand it?
> Define God with your exalted mathematics.
Did you even bother to read my post? GOD, are you ever a
self-centered thick-headed lamp-post conversationalist...
> Why do your equations work backwards and forwards, as if
> time ran in both directions?
Because backtesting!=foretesting, and I like to foretest my
forecasts by backtesting forecasts...
> Show me just once in all the universe
> when that happened... even once?
It's the plot of "Lost"!
> Your equations give the very
> same answers each and every time.
Not the EXACT same answers, no...man, are you intellectually
unprepared for this line of work!
> Show me ...just once in the
> enture history of the universe where two things or events
> exactly repeated itself.
The sun rose yesterday pretty much the same way it rose
the day before...but not EXACTLY, big deal...
> What was the very first life form?
What? How the hell would I know? For all I know, the first
life form was a banana slug, or an IRS agent...
> Show me the equations
> that detail the path from that first living thing to, say, intelligence.
I thought YOU had that! Me, I don't even restrict myself to thinking
about a "path"...
> Please, can your faithfully followed mathematics tell
> me anything about anything of substance???
Uh, dude, if you've got a roof over your head and use ANY
type of vehicle other than your feet to move around and eat
food that is trans****ted by vehicles you'd better believe that
there are well-established mathematical engineering principles
that allow you sit around like a leech and post nonsense
on the Internet...oh, yeah, the Internet itself couldn't exist
without the "Shannon rate", a mathematical equation...
> You can't even tell me what that cloud over there will look like
> a fraction of a second later. Yet you place all your faith in such
> impotent and circular methods of understanding.
I need some brain Viagra(TM)!
> Just too many variables you might say, too much noise, the
> butterfly effect and randomness and so on prevents those solutions
> you might insist. That's just the way the world is you might reply.
Yup, a big, confusing, chaotic world...except, strangely, a lot of
that "confusion" is "instinct" overruling logic...think logically, and a
LOT of the confusion goes away...
> Our lives, and our future are shaped by forces your science can't
> even begin to deal with. You wouldn't know even where to start
> with any of the above questions, let alone answer them.
"your science"? Why is it always MY science when it does
something bad?
> Clerks in counting rooms!
We use computers now, with a LOT more clerks who now
call themselves "IT specialists"...
> "If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics
> is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove
> itself to be one." -- John Barrow
IAWTQ, and have said something along those lines many times,
and did so in the post you are "disagreeing" with! What the hell is
the matter with you?
> One minumum is the Newtonian world.
Gotta tell you, I live in the "Newtonian world" most of the time,
except for my summer vacations in Tralfamadore...
> Where a few particles can
> be solved, but what about all the people in China?
I always clean my plate to ensure that all the people in China
will starve...
> Oh, we have
> the other minimum for that, statistical treatments as in the
> quantum world.
"God does not play dice with the universe" - as long as we're
ostensibly quoting Einstein
> But what about the messy middle, the fluid realm where we have
> too many variables for a particle treatment, but too few for
> a statistical one???
Is giving up and throwing a party an option?
> If you were to find the one place where neither minimums of
> mathematics works, you have the one place Nature and markets
> and forests end up given half the chance. The Edge of Chaos.
> Or the messy middle of the real non-linear natural world
> where nothing ever ever repeats exactly even once.
"The only two constants in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity." - I don't think Einstein said THAT
> The optimum, where complexity/uncertainty is at a maximum.
>
> Where both camps of mathematics are needed at once and
> neither works well, is the /one place/ all of reality evolves towards.
> The one place where no precision or repeatability exists.
> The one place as far from initial as is possible.
>
> THE ONE PLACE THAT MATTERS MOST.
The Hyde Lounge? Strangely, they let me right in, but
they won't let the "Deal Or No Deal" models in...
> Is the one place your methods completely fail.
I just try to look like somebody who knows somebody...
> That is the optimum, that is where nature exists, in the one
> and only place you can't see with your objective methods.
Damn!
> Where complexity/uncertainty is at maximum.
> A cloud, an emotion or a fluid.
Doe, a deer, a female deer...
> Your search for certainty, 'modern science' is literally the definition
> of a backwards science. So completely...exactly...backwards
> as to look almost like someone's idea of a joke.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!...what?!!??!!
> Untill you're willing to completely forget everything you've
> learned to date, and start over with an rigorously inverse
> frame of reference that rights the backwards state of affairs, you'll
> never see the simplicity and beauty of our reality.
Is there an 800 number I can call?
> Dynamics of Complex Systems....full online text
> http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
You know, if you're the guy who used to post here before
about "complexity", your nemisis was "Cory Hamasaki", who
is one of the "disappeared ones" here. He apparently "disappeared"
because his only asset was a crappy townhouse in Wa****ngton D.C.,
and he nervously (predictably!) vociferously posted hundreds of
times saying that the real estate "bubble" wasn't actually a "bubble",
when anybody with an IQ above room temperature could see that
it was.
Now he's homeless, because he couldn't do THAT simple math...
> What is the opposite of reductionism, what is the opposite of
> objective, what is the opposite of simplifying?
Something that makes my brain hurt?
> True accuracy can only be found in the output, as all variables
> are included, nothing at all 'snipped out' for the sake of simplicity.
This is again the fundamental argument in favor of "technical
analysis" by its apologists...you've really got to get up to speed
on the state of market "knowledge" before you waste a lot of
time re-inventing the wheel...
> And only through subjective methods can two observers
> agree upon real world complexity.
"Two dogs will do what one dog won't" - my secretary said her
father used to say this
> "But nature is a stranger yet;
> The ones that cite her most
> Have never passed her haunted house,
> Nor simplified her ghost.
>
> To pity those that know her not
> Is helped by the regret
> That those who know her, know her less
> The nearer her they get."
IAWTP (I Agree With This Poem)
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: still not sure!
|
