Quantum trading system - page 35
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
HideYourRichess, unfortunately, this is often the case.
Let's at least keep our houses clean and tidy... Let's grow flowers near our own house. And then the neighbours will come...
Exactly, cleanliness and order. This is especially true of definitions and concepts.
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, 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 quotidian - it was derived to describe another physical phenomenon!
Your militant materialism is not new, I have faced it all my life, though I myself at one time was engaged in a science and at the same time my world outlook, and moro-perception, as well as my way of life, were determined by religious and esoteric principles, and I must say that one did not contradict another, but very effectively supplemented and helped. It all depends on the individual and their life experience. I know examples when life has broken people so much in one moment that all "scientific paradigms" slipped away and they looked at the world with completely different eyes. Believe, Neutron, I respect science and those who work in it, but from my own empirical experience, I understand how some of its representatives impoverish themselves, while they are often talented people, and if they looked at the world with unshackled eyes, they would have achieved much more both in science, and in personal development. The world is a much more complex, multi-dimensional place than you can imagine, and everything I am saying has a place in it, whether you believe in it or not. I do not call you to accept my concepts on life, it is necessary to go to this not one life, I call you to be more tolerant and respectful to the sights, which do not enter in your life experience, differently you close for yourself a door not only to expansion of your world understanding, but to elementary cooperation with those who solve the similar problems, but proceeding from other concepts and principles, and this does not promote development neither science, nor you personally.
As to extending of thought, you are absolutely wrong here, even from the viewpoint of science; by saying so, you show that you poorly imagine the work of human mind.
As to mental world and other measurements, I think there is enough information available now confirming it and if you approach it without prejudices, you will find answers and examples, but again, all is known only by experience.
And what I want to say, you often compare market events and processes with random generator, it's a mistake, despite the external similarity of signals, the processes are formed under completely different laws, and their replacement leads to the fact that you are trying to apply to a process laws and methods completely different from it (that's what you accuse the author of this thread), but he is not trying to do it directly, he suggests to use the analogy, you try to do it outright, nothing good will come out.
There's a quantum oscillator for sale on ebay and they want $75 for it ......
Tell not anybody does not know and in Russia is possible to get similar?
By the way, Einstein's GR is not something really revolutionary - disproving everything that science has used up to then. It is a superstructure over the existing theory, in particular GRT includes Newtonian mechanics as a special case at low speeds (compared to the speed of light) and a coherentset of objects, pseudo-abstract images, themselves devoid of content, or part, fragment of some situation, etc.
Shit. How to communicate with you? It's hard to communicate. You get smartasses one after the other. It's annoying. In school, when I was there, I learned that the length of a body changes as the speed of that body approaches the speed of light. This alone overturns the hitherto established axioms which say that the length of a body does not change. That the length of a body can change was proved by Einstein. I agree that I do not know the history of science, but I know these facts from my teachers at school.
There is also another theory that I want to talk about. It also refutes hitherto established axioms. I think people know that a formless body has an infinite perimeter. It can be proved mathematically that there is no such thing as infinity. It is only a theoretical quantity. The fact that a formless body has no finite perimeter is proved by Chaos Theory. This theory is used by Bill Williams. That infinity does not exist is my theory. I can prove it with mathematical calculations. If there's a wise man who laughs again, I'm ready for it.
One more time. I think you have to look away from some schizophrenic decisions in the market and look at the market more simply. You have to look at the market more simply.
The fact that a formless body has no finite perimeter has been proven by Chaos Theory. [...] That infinity does not exist is my theory. I can prove it with mathematical calculations. If there's a smart guy who laughs again, I'm ready for it.
What I have underlined is, in general, purely mathematically different things, but that's not what we're talking about.
And chaotics hasn't proved any such thing. It simply took what actually exists and tried to generalise. No infinities have been physically discovered, but mathematically it is easy to construct such a figure whose perimeter is unbounded. But this mathematical fact does not really have much to do with chaotics.
Infinity has been talked about for a long time, and you are far from the first. Roughly speaking, there are two infinities - actual and potential.
The first one, the actual one, is the numerical continuum on the interval [0;1], for example. It exists, whatever you think of it, and we are used to it. Or do you mean to say that on that interval is a finite number of real (or at least rational) numbers? Although quite possible (and sort of even constructed) models of mathematics, in which actual infinities are forbidden.
The second type of infinity, potential infinity, is a natural number. By potentiality of infinity here we mean that there is no natural number "infinity", but the greatest natural number also does not exist, as we could always add one to it, to get even greater.
If you are going to prove to me that there can be no infinity because our universe is finite, then that is another conversation again. Even if the universe is indeed finite, that does not prohibit mathematics from introducing notions of infinity. Mathematics is our fantasy, and it may differ from physics.
In short, the argument about whether or not there is infinity boils down to a set of mathematical axioms that you tend to believe. But this is a property of your subjective reality, not of the world around us.
If you think everyone who fantasises is schizophrenic, that's your problem.
If you have nowhere to spend the time you waste inventing theories, that's your problem. You are like alchemists. In time you will realise how foolish you were in trying to predict the future.
To make a profit on our market, you need systems that make a profit from certain situations.
For example in the non-trend markets, it is better to use pips. They gather a lot of profits. In the trend markets it is better to trade along the trend. That is all. You do not have to invent anything. It is very simple. You have to use it. And not make up some quantum theories that have nothing to do with economics.