your take on chicago is reductivist bullshit, but i like the rest of your answer. i doubt rosy2 will be able to follow it, though.
The problem with your post is that it is based on philosophy and only on philosophy, and hence ultimately says nothing. Normally I don't go on these excursions on the main forum and leave it to chit-chat, but I will break my rule here just once. I suggest you tie your mysticism to a more grounded scientific attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism and http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-Mind-Roger-Penrose/dp/0140145346 I am just learning about Structuralism. I came to it by way of mathematics and Alexander Grothendieck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th century and creator of extremely abstract mamthematics. I find it very deep and interesting. The wiki article is very good, but it leaves you wanting more. Roger Penrose is seen as a quack by brain scientists, but I think he is on a correct path. nitro
I went through the content of the book and it has some pretty funny chapters. To name a few : Is there a role for quantum mechanics in brain activity ? Where is the seat of consciousness ? The time delay of consciousness
You guys are getting way too esoteric. You either have a statistically significant entry - or you don't. Depending on how that edge was derived, the edge can, in theory last indefinitely. It is my belief that all market behavior can be quantified to some degree, it is the money management that allows a trading algorithm to survive during periods of inconsistency.
Philosophy and mathematics are the same thing. Both begin with primitive definitions or axioms, and then with the application of a logical field, seek analytical conclusions about what these definitions can mean. Our "dispute" is not about the nature of inquiry, but rather, on the extent to which inquiry can uncover the nature or structure of things. The object of study and contention is the human mind. As much as the rationalists at the University of Chicago would have it, some aspects of human behaivior are simply unpredictable. It is because there is really no way to tell what people will choose that events like elections occur and institutions like financials markets are held to be the best way to figure out value. Algorithmic trading, when taken to the extreme, violates the fundamental tenet of all markets in that it believes human beings ultimately are predictable. Left entirely on its own, serious mistakes can occur where the application of some human common sense or perhaps even intuition and insight could easily have forestalled. But computer models can be very useful. Who would trade options without a model these days? Everyone of us in the market is the proverbial blind man trying to figure out what the elephant is. By using computers, we can often see more even though we may not see all. And the added vision can be a crucial advantage. Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that computers are not relevant to decision making. But as the code is written by man, and there can be no doubt that all men are fallible, even if there are no errors in the data, the complex algorithmns can virtually be guaranteed not to work the way its makers thought it would. Add to this the incompleteness of any code, for we are constantly learning and the market ever evolving, and the need for human intervention becomes even greater today than before. The machine has never replaced man. What it does is make man far more productive than he otherwise would be. We can expect fewer and fewer traders in the employ of hedge funds and investment banks, but there can be no doubt that there will always be traders.
I have no idea how this stuff ended up in this thread, but I will post it here just for kicks. "Quantum Water" Discovered in Carbon Nanotubes A new quantum state of water found in carbon nanotubes at room temperature could have important implications for life" http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26319/?ref=rss Who's laughing now? Penrose must be ecstatic.