How is that progressive? How progressive is it to understand the phenomenon of water freezing without understanding its cause? Your position has been abandoned long ago by the majority of scientists. If they adhered to your position they wouldn't be looking for the Higg's boson as the cause of mass formation. You have to realize that knowing the properties of phenomena is not nearly enough to know when these phenomena will emerge. You have to know the causes, although not their ultimate cause. If you don't know the causes, you may know how hard something hit you but not why it hit you. Are you a priest by the way? Historically, religion prohibited scientists from looking into causes. I wouldn't be surprised to know that your are a Catholic priest.
Thank you for your warm words. It has been a battle! I am much better these days and happy to be back. Thank you for remembering me! I will do my best to encourage people to think and educate themselves. I will also cautiously share what ever I can. Thank you again! Cheers, MAESTRO
Pretty good, actually. Thank you for asking. I also have collected what I consider an "overwhelming evidence" of market randomness and have managed to create the space converters that could normalize any market to fairly stable distributed stochastic processes. it's going really well! I am more pleased with a few discoveries that we have made recently then I have ever been before! Cheers MAESTRO
Well, could you please explain to all of us when does exactly water freeze and why? You would be the first one to do so. Did yo know that the theory of the matter state changes has been evolving probably more rapidly than any other branches of physics? Also, My point was that regardless of our current state of understanding water will freeze; We can experiment and make reasonable predictions for various conditions of how and when the actual freezing will occur without idolizing our current state of knowledge with regards of "why". Any model that we put forward is doomed to be an inaccurate one and the progress of mankind will prompt the thinkers to change the model to better reflect our current state of development. However, if one accepts the secondary nature of causality it will enable him/her to work outside the constraints put forward by current commonly accepted models. Cheers, MAESTRO
After all that research. Do you still believe prices are "randomly" distributed, and that RTM "works" for anything other than trivial size?. What are your current beliefs regarding "randomness"?. I have an hypothesis that random does not exist in nature or the markets, but I have not proven it yet.