The use of Mysticism to fool the people

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by harrytrader, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. bufferman,

    You wonder. I asked Harry before already what he means by mysticism? I did not get an answer.

    Of course your term "rational cause" is also a very loaded one. :cool:

    Be good,

    nononsense
     
    #21     Jan 19, 2004
  2. pspr wrote:
    > Harry, you need to find yourself a good shrink.

    Here's a suggestion: http://skepdic.com/jung.html

    Except he's dead.
    I guess it doesn't matter.
     
    #22     Jan 19, 2004
  3. What rational cause did Hitler have to use Nostradamus ? It is to exploit People's Mysticism. Where do you see contradiction since :D ?!!! I'm asking the same kind of questions for stocks market : is to exploit some Trader's Mysticism that correlation with moon and even planets have been introduced all the more ? Is it to hide that there is a deterministic and rational equation that Gann and I too claimed to have discovered ? And the premisces of my equations is that the market is manipulated so to hide this fact, they can use both EMH (for rational people) and Moons and planets for more Mystic people to hide that.


     
    #23     Jan 19, 2004
  4. What "they" do to the public all the time! Use mystery arouse our interest and take advantage of us, all sorts of things you name it!
     
    #24     Jan 19, 2004
  5. Harry,

    Instead of talking about these devils, please first do us your little demo on PI. This is at least something we can verify. For such a statistician/mathematician like you. What about the proud tradition of "rigueur" of Pascal, Fermat and the Bernouilli's? Don't weazel out now!

    You can talk about these other guys later.

    Be good,

    nononsense
     
    #25     Jan 19, 2004
  6. K.C.

    K.C.

    Maybe, just maybe, these traders know about it something more then you do.
     
    #26     Jan 19, 2004
  7. Is it any surprise that ET's resident conspiracy expert (nut) sees himself as a purely rational being?
     
    #27     Jan 19, 2004
  8. Bwahahahahahaha
     
    #28     Jan 20, 2004
  9. zdreg

    zdreg

    check out yahoo stock boards. you will find your limited vocabulary brethens
     
    #29     Jan 20, 2004
  10. Sorry but the foundation of science is to fight Mysticism : and since there is Mysticism in Stock Market, I don't see why I wouldn't have to fight it. More and more these Mystics use pseudo-science and that I can't bear as other scientists can't bear also like two physicians Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont who wrote a whole book on the subject:

    "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science "
    by Alan D. Sokal, Jean Bricmont

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=44#reader-link

    The problem is that there is a tiny frontier between for example the Mathematics and Cosmology approached scientifically and Mystical Numerology, most people lack the logic and/or knowledge to make the distinction and also because it's not sometimes easy see for example the Uncertainty principle: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26294&perpage=6&pagenumber=7

    "Bell's result is presented as showing that quantum mechanics is not a realistic theory rather than showing that it is nonlocal. The focus is on the reference to hidden variables in Bell's proof. Eberhard developed a version of Bell's argument that did not involve hidden variables[13]. In turn some physicists objected to Eberhard's proof because he assumed "contrafactual definiteness". That is he assumed one could argue about all possible outcomes of an experiment including those that did not happen.

    Arguments like those about hidden variables and contrafactual definiteness are philosophical. They have no clear resolution unlike problems that can be formulated mathematically. Such arguments are rare in the hard sciences. They occur here because of the claim in quantum mechanics that probabilities are fundamental or irreducible.

    There is no mathematical model for irreducible probabilities. There is not even a mathematically definition of a random number sequence. There are sequences that are recursively random. Loosely speaking this means that no recursive process can do better than chance at guessing the next element in the sequence. The problem with recursively random sequences is that they are more complex than any recursive sequence. If somehow one could generate such a sequence one could use it to solve recursively unsolvable problems.

    This suggests that a truly random sequence cannot exist. Any sequence that we would consider to be truly random must be recursively random. Otherwise there is some computer program that can guess with some degree of accuracy the elements in the sequence. Yet no recursive random sequence can be truly random. This presents a philosophical problem for the claim that quantum mechanics is truly random.

    The randomness claimed for quantum mechanics has no foundation in mathematics and it appears to be impossible to construct such a foundation. This does not make it wrong but suggests there are problems in our existing conceptual framework. It also means that physicists when arguing about these issues are debating philosophy with no objective way of deciding the issue."

     
    #30     Jan 20, 2004