Quantum trading system - page 33
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
DSP is used in stochastic control systems just for non-stationary signals. In the theory of stochastic control systems, even time is assumed to be non-stationary. Everything here has already been proven by the titans, my proof will look rather pathetic.
Okay! Anything you want for your money.
Our main problem is the fundamental difficulty in the process of generalisation by the individual of certain events. The conflict lies in the private nature of each particular outcome and its "distance" from the generalized (expected on average) probable character. To clarify what I am trying to say, here is an example. My eldest daughter, who is 8 years old, is in a constant "battle" with us parents for what she sees as her infringed rights. The main argument she uses in the dispute is an appeal to equality between us - adults and herself - the child. Everything seems logical - we are all human beings! But she puts it in the most unexpected way: you, the parents, can afford to watch TV whenever you want (from her point of view), play on the computer, etc... We tried to explain that we do not turn on the TV when we want, we do not do what we want, but what is necessary, etc., etc. The result was nothing. In the end, it was effective to explain to her that we are not equal and we have more rights than she does because we are adults.
So, by and large the conversation in this thread comes down to the following scheme:
There is official science and there are alternative views on the order of things in this world. Science, for some reason, has assumed the sole function to decide what is right and what is not. Though it often makes mistakes itself. Why should I believe it (precisely believe it!), why does my point of view have less weight than hers? I have the same rights. Let it (science) prove that I am not right, let it prove that I am wrong, and until then, be kind enough to carry me in your arms and do what I tell you... With such a pitch, science can be equated with the Inquisition with all that it entails... etc. Sounds like the picture above - me, that's the child, science is the parents.
Now, let's take a closer look. Science formulated its paradigm by the end of the 17th century and has been slowly but surely building a picture of the World ever since. There are mistakes, and big ones. But in general we can say that the process is progressive. During this time a huge amount of knowledge has been accumulated and systematised, which allows making predictions with more accuracy than any other system (this is the key point). It is not a specific prediction on the part of science (which can be erroneous), but an average, expected accuracy of predictions about particular events. If we stick to the scheme of rational behaviour of an individual (to reach the goal set as quickly as possible with the minimum cost under conditions of lack of information - real life), it is obvious that we should bet on scientific methods of knowledge and not on something else. Of course, having refused from quantum formalism in description of processes on the market, it is possible and steeply fail (and suddenly it is the adequate form for price formation process), but most likely, it will be a waste of time, which would be more correctly used in purposeful way. Thus, it is not correct to put science in the position of inquisition, they are completely different fields in their structure and purpose. And if science says this and that, then it is optimal not to argue with it putting forward alternative solutions, but to throw all forces in the specified direction. On the whole, we will win.
There is no need to expand one's thinking by attracting meditations and going into the mental world. There is nothing there, these are games of madness! There is no need to stretch Schroedinger's equation to meaningful levels of quotient - it was derived to describe another physical phenomenon!
Thus, it is not correct to put science in the position of the Inquisition, they are completely different fields in their structure and goals. And if science says this and that, then it is optimal not to argue with this, putting forward alternative solutions, but to throw all forces in the specified direction. On the whole, we will win. There is no need to expand one's thinking by attracting meditations and going into the mental world. There is nothing there, these are games of madness. There is no need to stretch Schrödinger's equation to meaningful levels of quotient - it was derived to describe another physical phenomenon.
You are somehow putting your opponent beyond science and yourself a priori as the representative of a leading scientific school. It seems to me that the thoughtless, erroneous, fundamentally wrong application of scientific methods (there may be an example of the wrong application in this thread, I haven't delved into it), is just a feature of er... how shall I call them... people in science. That is to say, it is among scientific staff that I see this in most cases. And authoritarianism as a method of struggle against such phenomena is not new, not new at all... Isn't it the reason why our science is dead?
Comparing yourself to Galileo is cool.
Where did you read that I meant me? I mean the situation. There are people here who are literally being bullied. And it's not just in this thread.
And everywhere, in all threads, that's pretty much what happens.
My position is as follows. If I don't understand what it's all about, I don't pry and don't snide. I allow people to discuss and develop. I do not need to get in their way.
I perceive snide remarks and snide remarks on the topic as the desire of most snide remarks to force the person "in the know" to try to do more than they can now. To try to put words on him so that he reveals perhaps even his secrets.
There's a lot that I have no idea about. Or have a very distant idea. Why should I pry into such areas. I don't know what kind of education I have. If I graduated from an institute, then what? - Mock those who didn't go to college...?
------------------
There are many things in the world, friend Horizio, which are unknown to our wise men... (Shakespeare, Hamlet)
-----------------
I don't want to throw anything bad at Neutron either. I completely agree with a lot of what he says. And his logic is often brilliant.
----------------
But there are a lot of people here from whom you hear nothing but snide remarks.
---------------
For the record.
Meditation, all sorts of religious stuff, psychic, etc. etc. have never been involved and don't plan to be.
There is no need to expand your thinking by engaging in meditation and retreating into the mental world. There's nothing there, it's a game of madness!
Nice psychological self-portrait. What else can you tell us about your subconscious? Maybe there are demons dancing in there too?
I don't want to say anything bad about science either.
I have another example from my childhood. In first and second grade, my friends and classmates and I used to dabble a bit - we smoked if we could find something to smoke.
My father found out. And he just said about the following (it's been about 45 years since then, so I don't remember verbatim): Do whatever you want. Whatever you do, you are entitled to do. I can't and don't want to force you to do anything. But, understand, I care about your health. And I care about it. It's your choice. Whatever you do, that's the way it's going to be.
I quit dabbling - smoking - in the second grade of school (when I was 8 years old). And I never smoked again.
He managed to tell me in a way that made me realise that everything I do is my decision and that I will be responsible for that decision myself. And for all the consequences. It wasn't spoken for.
And I think it's better than just saying to a child: We are not equal. Do as I say.
It's a very different approach.
...If we stick to the individual's scheme of rational behaviour (achieving a goal as quickly as possible with minimum cost in the face of lack of information - real life), then clearly the bet must be on scientific methods of knowledge and not on anything else.
This is the trap for the 'trained'. The more experience, the deeper the trap. Something new is found by the one who manages to break out of the ring of "rational thinking". This is in general. And the market is "made" by people, events, political desires or elementary greed. Try describing it with physical laws.
There is no need to prevent something new from sprouting, as long as it is not harmful to those around you.
It is better to help as much as possible.
For some reason you put your opponent beyond science, and yourself a priori as a representative of a leading scientific school. It seems to me that thoughtless, erroneous, fundamentally wrong application of scientific methods (there may be an example of wrong application in this thread, I haven't delved into it), is just a feature of er... how shall we call them... people in science. That is, it is among scientific staff that I see this in most cases. And authoritarianism as a method of struggle against such phenomena is not new, not new at all... Isn't it the reason why our science is dead?
gip, to a certain extent we should trust each other's opinion but verify it. Look, if there is an individual, who says clever words like "quantum transition", "wave function", "dark matter" and so on, we cannot say anything definite about his competence in science. But, when he proposes to use approaches and methods developed in one field of science to phenomena from other fields and does not give a clear justification for this approach, then we should be alert - it is possible that soon we will be offered to treat oncology not by traditional methods. Of course, you can get well (by accidentally using the right herb), but you are more likely to die paying for the pleasure of a fraud.
Now, I'm not putting myself above or below anyone else in the conversation. I suggest to think before you say something and after you say it, you must give a reason explaining what you are saying. If such a position automatically qualifies me to a scientific school, fine. By the way, the authoritarianism (reasonable) in a science is a useful thing, because it allows to concentrate on the main thing and not to scatter the forces on minor details. In general, speaking of the work of the large collective, it brings more productivity.
And if our science finally dies, it is from the policy, which is led by very "gifted" children in our government, and beyond the outstretched hand (sejununal benefit) do not want to see.
And I think that's better than just telling a child: We are not equal. Do as I say.
A very different approach.
I certainly agree with that.
It is just that sometimes this approach bumps into the child's principled interest against our (adult) interest, which is based on the logic of existing events. Sometimes it is impossible to convey them to a child, because his or her conceptual system is limited, and authoritarian methods have to be used. Unfortunately.
This is the trap for the "educated". The more experience, the deeper the trap. Something new is found by the one who manages to escape from the ring of "rational thinking". This is in general terms.
I declare with full responsibility that "in general" it is not.
Although in private cases, it is not impossible, but I would not bet on private events.
About authoritarianism in a team, in science. If there is some work that the team is working on, some authoritarianism may be necessary. Otherwise there will be disorder and vacillation. As a result, the work may not be completed within the time frame allotted for its execution. And everything will go to waste. Wasted time and money.
But when brainstorming, which is often the case in forums, there should be as much freedom as possible. Deviations from this may be only obvious rudeness to the participants, which should be stopped... Some general rules of the forum should not be violated.