Let's talk about how science and trading is related. Quantum Physics, Physics, Math, Chaos Theory, Einstien, Tao(I Ching), Astronomy, and other.... scientific and meta-science topics. Just because I start this thread, it doesn't mean it's a Gann or other esoteric thread
Here's a starter.... In Hermetic Principle, they mention that everything, in Micro- and Macro-cosmic levels, has duality. There are different kinds of the duality: 1. Degree. Like Hot and Cold. These relative forms of duality. It's impossible to determine a definite line between hot and cold. 2. Cyclical. Every action must have a reaction. I mention cyclical but that does not only mean the time phase of the ebb and flow. The action and reaction can happen at the same time which is (based on my personal esoteric perspective), is equally cyclical. 3. Gender. I and the Me. The Subjective and Objective. The Absolute and Relative. In any form of phenomenon, there are 2 sides. Well, that's some of the principles.... Any trading thoughts based on this???
at some philosophical level trading is much like quantum mechanics: you can't make accurate predictions, only statements of probability.
I agree as I would think Einstein to agree. One can only make statements of probability because the underlying factors either are not yet known or cannot yet be measured. This is, I think even more true considering the limits of measurement are not as they are stated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That is, measurement does not disturb the system, rather it is extremely difficult due to the miriad of variables involved.
There is no way I can understand the level of discussion in this thread. But I feel compelled to contribute. Please excuse me if I am off-track. First, We can agree that the market such as the SP 500 does not demonstrate random movement. There are identifiable trends. I was on a farm and was watching the cattle standing there. I notice one of them looked up from the ground she was eating from and started walking. Where was she going? All the others followed her too. Where were they going? I later discovered it was nearing feed time and they were moving to the bins. This was not random movement. But all the others followed the lead cow. At other times when the dogs were guiding them, those smart dogs would go to the front lead cow and steer from there and all the others would follow....just a few stragglers for the dogs on the side. So when the market moves and there is a reaction, the observation of degree.....hot being higher prices and cold being lower prices would be an absolute and objective observation. Entry price would make it relative and subjective. WD you are bored this Sunday afternoon and why do you make me show my ignorance? Should I press the submit reply button below....oh what the heck I'm bored too? Michael B.
I don't think Einstein would agree with you. Einstein was one of the harshest critics of quantum mechanics. He never liked it and considered it incomplete. The so called Einstein-Podolski-Rosen thought experiment was a milestone in the understanding of real nature of quantum world but only after John Bell developed it into a mathematically coherent statement that could be experimentally tested. Einstein was proved wrong by experiments based on Bell's theorem but he did not live long enough to learn about it. Still, his objections proved very instrumental to our understanding of quantum mechanics and if he did not make them, we would have to wait longer for the very important theorem produced by Bell.
I thought what I stated was what you have stated here?? I am not knowledgeable of the Bell theorem, but have read numerous articles on the debate b/w Einstein and Bohr, et al. What I meant to state was that statistical/probability understanding is incomplete by nature. It may however, be the best understanding we can have at any point in time. As a result, although it is best right now to assume positions based on probability, we should still attempt to come to a more fundamental understanding of the forces at work for future applications. As it relates to the stock market and ET: Right now we should trade based on statistical/probability knowledge, but we should discuss what might be known beyond statistics/probability with the hope of one day freeing ourselves from these bounds.
OK, I got you better now. Yes, Einstein believed that, as he put it, 'God does not play dice', meaning that Nature is more deterministic than we think and it's only that we still need to understand it. Well, Nature is not the way Einstein thought it to be. The Einstein-Bohr debates of 20's were only the beginning of Einstein's objections, they were formulated more precisely in the EPR paper of 1935. It was that paper that led Bell to his theorem that refuted Einstein's view of quantum world. You may want to google the Web for the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox, aka the EPR paradox, the Bell theorem, and Aspect experiments to get a more current understanding of these things. A good popular book on this subject is 'Quantum Reality' by Nick Herbert, who also wrote some other popular physics books, at least I am familiar with one more. Hope this helps.
It should, thankyou. Unfortunately, I have been drawing off past studies and am so far out of "physics-mode" that my mind is unaccepting of new ideas in this field. I tried reading some various web pages concerning Bell's work and things just weren't gelling. Oh well, back to the drawing board I suppose. Thanks again, I shall be making my not-so-graceful exit of this thread now. -rlb
Well, at least you are open-minded enough to take interests in these things... Another good book, more up-to-date and a little bit more advanced than Herbert's is 'The Infamous Boundary' by David Wick. An open-minded layman can certainly learn a lot from it, even if at times it gets a bit technical.