I've been following this thread and think I may finally have some thoughts of value: The goal of science is to make predictions, create mathematical explanations of "reality," and prove itself by way of repetitive experiment. The goal of trading is to make money by making predictions, create mathematical explanations of the market (for some), and prove oneself by way of repetitive profit. The qualitative aspects of both science and trading are, in a sense, a failure in understanding. In other words, what one can not make formula (quantitative) one hopes they can respond to in a qualitative manner. The question seems to me to be whether one must take the fuzzier aspects of their trading style and devise a complex program by which the system may be applied or whether one should focus these "fuzzy" aspects into simpler, more quantitative rules of trade. One could also, ignore such matters. But, I think this latter option would leave one open to their own potentially denigrative emotional input and prevent the development of trading ideas. In science there are many simple explanations of "reality" which work very well - e.g. the acceleration of gravity=9.8 m/s2 - in many very practical ways, but that fall apart when circumstances change - e.g. one leaves the earth's gravitational field. The same I think applies to trading. One must adapt to these changing circumstances in some way or else their predictions will begin erring very greatly, very quickly. Simple or Complex? Designing a model to describe reality no matter how simple, is not easy. The yin and yang, so to speak, of this problem is that the more simple the model the easier it is to build, but the less applicable it becomes, and thus the more it must be adapted; the more comlex the model, the more difficult it is to build but the greater applicability it has, and thus the less it need be adapted. Choosing the best path depends upon one's ability to compensate for the "drawbacks" of either approach. My mathematical prowess, though sufficient for most things, falls well short of PhD, what a theoretical physicist would require. Often when I get stuck in trying to transfer what is in my head onto paper, I doodle. Sometimes I find myself devising some cleverly descriptive pictorial representations of my ideas, often not but sometimes. I must cut this short so as to make a living...enjoy! -rlb
"..................... and your "kung fu" nonsense is worse than useless." Here was another remark made by Sayt Chaoisity which shows a certain lack of understanding and appreciation of what WD Gann was trying to convey. In any kind of endeavour, sport, science etc there are many people who have reached a high level of skill but ............... they aren't quite at the top in their particular field of endeavour. Bobby Fisher thought it a good idea to get himself in physical shape by going to a gym in order to be able to play at his particular level of chess and that doesn't make any sense to many people who don't quite see the connection. I know exactly what WD Gann was talking about and it has got everything to do with trading (i.e. trading at a higher level of skill). In fact I would go as far as to say that without those certain techniques (a particular state of mind is a much better word actually) one may reach a high standard in a particular field of endeavour but one will never be able to reach the highest level. A good way to describe that state of mind is that in order to work (or play sport etc) at the highest level possible for one one needs to switch off one's ordinary 'thinking mind'. freealways
HarryTrader, MUST we be subjected in everyone of your post to Dr Horowitz's hobby horse ? BTW, stop using words like 'prediction', it makes one think that you are talking about reading tea leaves or reading someone's palm. The word 'prediction' has no place in THIS discussion. A better choice would be to use the word 'projection' freealways
Quote from freealways Sayt Chaoisity said : "ancient "wisdom" my ass. and just how did "they" arrive at this "ancient wisdom"? divine inspiration? perhaps they were born wise? or this 'wisdom" came to them in a dream? " Many, many discoveries by scientists have been made 'out of the blue' rather than by logic. Some wake up in the morning and the problem has been solved - overnight. Others get insight via a flash of inspiration. , coming from nowhere.[/B[/QUOTE] the inspiration or insight may have come "out of the blue" but not RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE (aka "WISDOM"). insight MUST be TESTED for validity! Logic, rational thought, or scientific method and all such other goodies often haven't played a part.[/B[/QUOTE] those "goodies" as you put are what separate men from beasts! How the heck did mankind get the knowledge of acupuncture (points)? Science tells us that there is no such thing as meridians yet the theory works and acupuncture no longer is hocus pocus and is respectable now..[/B[/QUOTE] many many many years of uncritical trial and error. How could the ancient Greeks possbly come to predict the existence of the atom around 500 BC ? (They named the predicted particle 'atomos,' meaning "indivisible.").[/B[/QUOTE] lucky guess. Yeh, I know that today every schoolboy knows about it but the question remains. The idea that there is such a thing like a mastermind into which one can tap suddenly doesn't seem to be a bad model to explain where most of mankind's knowledge comes from..[/b[/quote] that's a very very bad model that suppresses thought, progress and free inquiry. rational man prefers scientific method.
Early on in this thread The Plumber went into a long tirade (lasting several posts) talking about numerology. Most of us would dismiss that subject out of hand. The plumber obviously is a believer. Myself, well I certainly am inclined to keep an open mind about that. basically because I remember that a few years ago I used computer created numbers to project the winners of races. I did that for a period of approximately one year. Amazingly the results were extremely good to the extent that if one were to say that it just had to be due to chance I would have to reply that, statistically speaking, there was one chance in 300,000 that the results were due to chance. I guess we are now talking about synchronicity (which actually was a subject Jung was very much interested in). Just in case there are any skeptics on this site, I would not like to be caught on the other side of a bet as to whether this is BS or not. In the end I want to say that all those people in this thread with theories (or ideas) of applying things like chaos theory to trading, go and show us that it is workeable (which I seriously doubt). freealways
if you want to talk about Jung that would be much more productive, since he is one of the few "scientific" types who wasn't afraid to talk about the occult or the paranormal. The truth is there are many people who read their horoscope every day but would never admit it. It has a very strong appeal. I myself read my horoscope and own a Tarot deck, although I do not claim to see the future.
Wally, you said : "The most remarkable thing about Nature is that it can be understood at all. In principle, there is nothing 'scientific' about it, yet we can understand it in terms of science. " I would hazard to say that we cannot, nor ever will, understand nature. All we can do is create a model which (for the time being) explains certain happenings. I certainly disagree where you say 'there is nothing scientific about it'. Nature certainly appears to be very logical the way it works and if we can agree that the word 'scientific' is identical to the word 'logical' one would need to come to the unavoidable conclusion that nature IS scientific. Cheers, freealways
I can just imagine bubbleheads like Sayant Chaosity (Daniel_M) embracing Jung's take on 'synchronocity' or the I-ching...
>> I myself read my horoscope and own a Tarot deck, although I do not claim to see the future.<< Nice entertainment value Dotslashfuture, but not half as entertaining as the Iraqi Minister for (Dis)information who claims to have knowledge of the present (never mind the future). freealways
I won't repeat the whole of the post Saynt Chaois but I certainly would like to comment on your comments. You say : "the inspiration or insight may have come "out of the blue" but not RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE (aka "WISDOM"). but insight MUST be TESTED for validity! I don't need a PH. D. in logic to tell you that your remark "insight MUST be TESTED for validity!" is rather illogical. The testing has got nothing to do as to whether or not the insight has or has not got validity as such. The testing is merely to provide us with confirmation. Then there is another remark which makes no sense at all. You say "Logic, rational thought, or scientific method and all such other goodies often haven't played a part." and you continue with "those 'goodies' as you put are what separate men from beasts!" Well you could have fooled me. You seem to imply that we stand out from animals i.e. 'we are better than animals. Just (as an example) have a look at how the Saddam's regime treated the population (cutting out their tongue, gauging out their eyes, just torturing and thence killing them all just because they happen to make a statement which the regime disagrees with. Yeh, mankind stands out all right ........... for the worse. Another puzzling remark was your comment on my statement "How the heck did mankind get the knowledge of acupuncture (points)? Science tells us that there is no such thing as meridians yet the theory works and acupuncture no longer is hocus pocus and is respectable now" Your response was to say "many many many years of uncritical trial and error." I doubt you got the point which I was trying to make. Why would one go to the trouble of looking for those meridians by trial and error UNLESS one had received some insight about their existence in the first place ??? I would like to say that the same response (I doubt you got the point which I was trying to make.) applies to your response ('Lucky guess') about the ancient Greeks arriving at the idea about the existence of the atom around 500 BC. You almost make me think that you are related to Msfe, in a closed eyes and ears mode, the way you automatically reject whatever someone else puts forward irrespective whether it makes sense or has merit. Then to top it off you dismiss the model of a mastermind as 'a very very bad model that suppresses thought, progress and free inquiry. rational man prefers scientific method.' How do you think Einstein arrived at his theory of relativity in the first place ? freealways