""I'm familiar with Wolfram's general premise, that most highly complex phenomena spawn from a handful of basic interactions more elegantly simple than we would ever intuitively suspect. This seems pretty much in line with the reductionist nature of scientific discovery and the search for a grand unification theory. Does he offer any compelling angles or insights into complexity theory that have not been covered previously?"" Well, in places that I have worked we essentially had the same premise - worded in a different way than Wolframs fundamental theorem. The strength of Wolframs work is that he has provided an interweaving/connecting of various topics with phenomenlogical justification. Nobody - to my knowledge - has published similar investigations (for a variety of reasons). So in a sense his "line in the sand" is important. His fundamental theorem and its associated viewpoint is something that will be new to most people in the field. Wolframs point is that by shifting your viewpoint of many fundamental phenomena you just might end up with a more fruitful vantage point - and which also might be useful for attacking some types of problems.
thanks Kymar / Caltrader, you've convinced me to take the Wolfram challenge. Alpha I will check out Hagstrom too. This thread got a far better response than I could have hoped for. p.s. Publias and Surfer and Aphie your mentions are on my pending investigation list also- which is longer than my forearm by now LOL....
thought of the day: consider the volatility/time period characteristics of a popular stock such as IBM (15 period simple ATR): monthly range: $13.57 weekly range: $6.48 daily range: $2.96 hourly range: $0.93 10 min. range: $0.37 1 min. range: 15 cents (at time of this writing) A month of trading (twenty 6.5 hour trading days) in the life of IBM offers 7800 times the magnitude, yet only 90 times the absolute volatility, of sixty seconds in the life of IBM. The magnitude of movement relative to time shows exponential increase in proportion to time period decrease. The certainty of measurement rapidly decreases also, as the 15 period ATR measurement becomes more prone to flux. SO: is it reasonable to conclude that, on a nanosecond scale, the price of IBM might be superpositioned?
Descartes' Error is for you Dark! Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain... I know I have you salivating I am sure you can find an aweful lot of stuff to throw at me For example; "...his research shows us, the absence of emotion and feeling can break down rationality and make wise descision making almost impossible" If you are interested in the nature or the mind then this is good place to start! PEACE and good trading, Publias BTW; I see that Penrose was rec'd I LOVED his work...
One trading month (for IBM) spans the length of 7,800 trading minutes, yet contains only 90.47 times the volatility amplitude of a single trading minute. If the volatility/time ratio were constant, those numbers (7800 and 90.47) would be close to equal rather than dramatically different. As it is, they show that relative price volatility increases as the time scale decreases. Kind of like uncertainty increases as the size scale decreases. Kind of like a planet has more concrete rules of behavior than an electron.... Just a fun observation
That is an interesting observation you made BUT you surely you did not think any differently before hand did you? Micro-scopic observations of the universe almost always increase uncertainty, the lower we go the more "fuzzy" things get... Let me ask question to you Dark... I remember a long time ago on this board we spoke of something called "ignorance hedge" do you remember that? How do you think Newton would have done as a trader??? PEACE and good trading, Publias
i didn't think about it at all beforehand. i knew and understood relative volatility levels, sure. but did i connect that with the quantum concept? not directly...hindsight is 20/20 and history seems simple because the connections are right there in front of our noses. but you have to put the connections together to get anything new. if i recall correctly Socrates' entire conception of knowledge was based on this idea, that all he did was help people establish connections between unconnected truths they already had. like a guy walking around saying 'hey, put that peanut butter together with that jelly, you'll get something new and interesting.' anyway one man's goofy ideas are another man's potential gold mine, maybe people thought Bill Gross was a doofus when he started talking about messing around with coupon clipper bonds, the vision to act on obvious ideas makes the world go round ignorance hedge, hmm...you mean the idea that diversification is a hedge against ignorance? thats the best i can recall how would Newton do as a trader, let's see, i think he would trade mortgage backed securities and make mid six figures but wouldn't respond well to the ibank environment. his tendency to be overly pensive would cause him to miss good trades every once in a while. instead of smashing phones he would throw apples at people. He would like Kswiss over Nike or Adidas and Diana Ross over Carly Simon. oh yeah and he would have this bad habit of winking at you and flashing the ok sign when he farts.