NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 62
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
... What is the carrier of this property in the absence of a material medium?
An intangible carrier.
Vacuum, even if it has no electromagnetic fields, due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, seems to be able to generate particles. This has long been a reality of quantum physics. Say, gravitons/gravitinos etc, which may decay immediately, but have time to interact during their lifetime. I'm not strong in this high physics, so I won't elaborate. But these particles may well be carriers of this property, as an analogue of mesons.
P.S. 2 Yurixx: Thanks for the title of Zarechny's book. I already downloaded it.
to SK
and you would do well not to put any unnecessary engrams
The vacuum, even if it has no electromagnetic fields, can sort of generate particles thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This has long been a reality of quantum physics. Say, gravitons/gravitinos etc, which may decay immediately, but have time to interact during their lifetime. I'm not strong in this high physics, so I won't elaborate. But these particles may well be carriers of this property, as an analogue of mesons.
P.S. 2 Yurixx: Thanks for the title of Zarechny's book. I already downloaded it.
I am not strong in physics either.
What you have said only confirms that physical matter is "built" on the basis of higher levels of reality. All properties of physical objects, without exception, have inherently higher carriers - immaterial. We simply cannot identify astral and mental objects, because our perception of reality is limited by the limits of our physical consciousness.
--
But I do not see the point in elaborating on this subject. Apparently, no one wants to have a positive conversation.
Sergey (SK.), I respect your point of view, but in this case I offered the interpretation according to "Occam's blade" principle in such interpretation: if it is possible to find an explanation of the phenomenon from the position of the accepted dogmas, it is preferable to the explanation violating them.
I myself know that modern physics (especially "entangled state theory", here is very interesting: http://quantmag.ppole.ru/QuantumMagic/Doronin1/12.html) already practically uses something eerily unconventional, but not necessarily immaterial or even more so unknowable (noumena):
something eerily unrecognisable, but not necessarily intangible or even more so, unknowable (a noumen):
I understand what you are saying. I also understand our confusion when we find ourselves suddenly ready to accept new knowledge.
We used to divide everything in two - black and white, boy and girl, plus and minus. And we necessarily have to identify ourselves as communist or anarchist, atheist or believer.
You gave an example whose underlying positive assertion is materialism. This "not necessarily immaterial" asserts that the world is definitely material, while the existence or non-existence of anything beyond that is a big question.
In my opinion the other position is more constructive. After all, it is impossible in principle to prove the non-existence of something. One can only prove the existence of something. So it is "sort of more logical" to assume that neither is proven, so both are theoretically possible.
As for my position, it has been determined - I am already on the other side of the watershed. But "that side" is not idealistic (as opposed to materialistic), but rather a generalized one that assigns a certain role to matter as the basis of physical reality and to objects of the astral and mental plane as the essence of the qualitative, fundamental basis for matter (and, by the way, the original carrier of its properties).
2 SK
Sergey, you have repeatedly stated your point of view on consciousness, development, comprehension of truth and other high matter on this forum. I agree with you on many questions, and our views differ on many others. Nevertheless we do not argue, because we agree on the main point: Life is a much bigger phenomenon than what we see, hear and touch. And we are both attracted to that, the unknowable, side of Life. And there are many people (probably most) who are practitioners. For them, what they see, hear and touch is much more important than everything else put together, because they have no opportunity not only to appreciate the magnitude of that everything else, but even just to touch it.
Suppose you want to awaken in such a person an interest in learning. What do you do? For the umpteenth time you repeat the classification of forms of consciousness and everything related to it. Do you think that such a person, having got acquainted with the classification, will immediately calm down and accept it with open arms? I don't think you think so. There's nothing more boring than classifications, especially for someone who has no experience in the field.
And by the way, the example you gave with gravity is quite unfortunate, Mathemat is absolutely right.
2 Mathemat
Regarding Zarechny's book I would like to say a few words. Not as a criticism, but to dissociate positions. I mentioned it here in a very approving tone and from this one can conclude that I agree with everything in it and find it quite adequate to the complex issues it deals with. That is not at all the case.
The first part of it, deals with the latest advances in science, in particular quantum mechanics, experiments of principle, and their understanding and interpretation, and the relation of all this to Consciousness. All the factual material and its explanation is brilliant. The explanation of quantum-mechanical concepts is also quite good, in principle anyone can figure it out. The whole way of accumulation of experimental facts and their understanding, their connection with existing theories, which inevitably leads to the conclusion: the immaterial is primary, is well described. Even this intangible is given its own name.
However, when Zarechny tries, using the theory of coherent states as well as the theory of decoherence and recoherence, to explain certain physical or hypothetical phenomena, and moreover involves the "theory of entangled states", he starts contradicting himself. One cannot help thinking that the main result of "the theory of entangled states" is a complete confusion of philosophical notions of physicists. :-)
The most interesting thing is that in all these heavy-handed attempts of Zarechny to explain physics and, to an even greater extent, philosophy, there is no need. There are considerably simpler and more structural explanations that are in perfect harmony with the general flow of the book, and which can be reached by any of the readers. Well, Zarechny just wanted to put too much emphasis on quantum mechanics, so he went a bit overboard, it happens.
And the second part - "Consciousness" - I did not even read. I read two chapters and realized that I didn't need it. There Zarechny expounds his ideas about the subject, relying to some extent on his own experience, but to a considerable extent (IMHO) on others' book experience, on his speculations, etc. You can find quite a few classifications and a lot of interesting things there. I would not dream of challenging a single word of it. However, it is an area where one has to dive in personally, by grasping everything on one's own experience, because that grasping is the way of human transformation. And reading about the transformation (instead of the transformation itself) is also possible, of course, but it makes no sense.
TO ALL, TO ALL, TO ALL
We are all hostage to that set of facts and perceptions with which we deigned to be introduced (or outright imposed) at the time when our personality was formed. Zarechny's book contains a short excerpt from another book, Maciej Kuczyński's Life is a Thought . In this piece two biological facts are stated, the second one concerns amoebas. If I had learned that in high school, when we were studying biology, I wouldn't have been able to accept the materialistic worldview so easily. Someone has carefully purged our school curricula of such questionable details of real life. Presumably - to avoid damaging doubts. :-(
So, who wants to know how the world really is, cannot be ignorant. He must learn the most incomprehensible, the most unexplainable, but repeatable, reproducible, scientific facts both from quantum mechanics and from the life of amoebas. This is not magic or psychic science, this is science. But while it is incapable of saying anything intelligible, we ourselves can reflect and come to principled conclusions. It is enough that science confirms and records these facts.
Those wishing to read this small but fascinating piece can Google two words: amoeba grex.
to Yurixx
Тем не менее, мы с Вами не спорим, поскольку сходимся в главном: Жизнь - это значительно бОльшее Явление, чем то, что мы видим, слышим и осязаем. И нас обоих привлекает та, непознанная, сторона Жизни. А есть много людей (наверное большинство) - практиков. Для них значительно важнее то, что они видят, слышат и осязают, что все остальное вместе взятое, поскольку у них нет возможности не только оценить масштабы этого всего остального, но даже просто прикоснуться к нему.
Maybe I missed something, but then how does a non-practitioner find out what else is in the world besides what he "sees, hears and touches"? I would add "thinks" to that list, because it turns out that you just described an amoeba, or at best my cat (though he is one step higher than an amoeba, but shows off as if the entire universe owes its existence to him). For, even an idea does not arise out of the blue (again, this is definitely not the case with my cat - he always has three thoughts).
How, for example, a person found out about the existence of, say, an "astral body". In this case, the interesting aspect is the fact of knowledge itself, not its truth or falsity, and more interesting is the original source (I am not referring to wise books and a chain or "network" of teachers who preserved that knowledge, but the original source itself).
Zarecki's book includes a short excerpt from another book, "Life is a Thought" by Maciej Kuczyński. In this piece two biological facts are stated, the second one concerns amoebas. If I had learned that in high school, when we were studying biology, I wouldn't have been able to accept the materialistic worldview so easily.
It all depends on the 'importance', 'personal impressionability' and 'imagination' given to the fact or speculation. The ancient Indians, for example, including the ancient Vedas, assure that the soul is also encased in stone.
PS: in general, the fact of coincidence of the main postulates of various teachings and religions separated by a great distance and time is rather curious in itself and makes one become suspicious.
Well, as long as everyone...
Loaded it up, read it. I found nothing there to shake my bluntly materialistic worldview.
Biology to date remains like a blind man groping an elephant. The example shows only
undeveloped science and the lack of knowledge to explain the phenomena described. The already mentioned "Occam's razor
Occam's razor" clearly cuts off all fabrications. By the way, kudos to Mathemat for being extremely tactful with everyone,
regardless of whether they agree with their opinions. A good example for us all.
to Yurixx.
About the amoebas
:о)
Look up "the great mystery of water" in your search engine and you will learn many interesting things about it. Man consists mainly of water, especially brain, which besides water there is nothing special really and the presence of "gray matter" is difficult to explain our abilities. Water is much cleverer than amoebas and possibly humans (it is considered the most perfect computer in the world) and it is possible that water makes your amoebas so clever :o)
PS: Some time ago as an architect I developed a very interesting data storage structure -CD (there is such a direction in IT), using some very interesting properties of water (I looked it up and copied it from Nature like a dunce). I think I will come back to it in traderst part, but with a little rethinking of the goals of DW.
I don't believe in luck, unfortunately. But thanks anyway :)
Hmm...
Luck is a positive event resulting from an accidental, unpredictable or unaccountable coincidence of circumstances. It can also denote the desirable outcome of an event or action, especially in situations where it is not (entirely) dependent on the actions or decisions of the individual affected. Examples of luck would be winning the lottery, roulette or other game of chance. Another word used for luck is luck. Luck is a frequently used motif in art.
Are you saying that there are no positive events? Or that they are not the result of chance? ;)
But I'm just saying that :)
I don't count on luck either, but when it comes to an undertaking, it's a very good thing :)
Well, "thoughts on the matter", as they say. Please...
I will allow myself a digression on the subject of natural intelligence training. I own a car and I love to drive it. When I get behind the wheel I sort of immerse myself in a different environment. At some point in time, I find that sometimes I get a kind of premonition. For example, driving in an empty lane, I refuse to yield to a car (which is in the next busier lane) and a fraction of a second later that car changes lanes. Of course, I am talking about the cases when the driver of the other car has not in any way indicated his intentions. It happens rarely enough, and I explained it to myself by the possible changes in the driving dynamics of another car, which are not clearly visible, but make me feel insecure about the behaviour of my neighbour on the road.
Coming back to FOREX, rate fluctuations do not occur in isolation from each other. FOREX is a set of communicating vessels and the changes that take place with one currency are transmitted to the whole system. It is worth observing, but the dynamics, not the historical statics, should be observed. The observer may notice some regularities or get a feeling of movement. But don't settle for dogmas like "the price is going up because everyone is buying".