Randomness of price values - page 10
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
;)
Well, unlike the cat, they did manage to deal with the question of the fundamentality of randomness (as opposed to uninformedness).
That's bullshit. There are no true theories, there are more or less suitable ones to explain current observations. They haven't been able to prove it. Only to build a theory to explain some observations. Not the first and not the last :)
To return to the original topic. My understanding: despite the fundamental nature of random processes, they do tend to create regularities on statistical scales.
Boyle and Marriott still rule. So does Heisenberg. I'm not saying anything new. I just want to bring the discussion back to sanity with signs of science... :)
But I see causality adding up in many ways...
And there are also trands.
... I would like to remind you of the wordsof Yevgeny Slutsky who did a lot for the study of time series: "What is the causal mechanism, which year after year, decade after decade reproduces the same sine wave, rising and falling on the surface of the social(biological, economic, etc.) ocean with the regularity of day and night? It is not surprising if the gazes of explorers again, as centuries ago, turn to the celestial luminaries, seeking in them an explanation of human affairs. One may not hesitate to allow the most daring hypotheses, but is it not worth considering whether all other paths are genuinely ordered to us...?"
;)
It's all bullshit. There are no true theories, there are more or less suitable ones to explain current observations. There is no way to prove them. Only to build a theory explaining some observations. Not the first and not the last :)
No no no... ! You can read the proof in popular form in Heisenberg's book "Part and whole". (Chapter 10: Quantum Mechanics and Kant's Philosophy.)
There are more sophisticated ones with specific maths etc, but I think that's enough. Besides for sure it is possible to prove more easily. The theory just hasn't been invented yet. ;)
But I see a lot of causality in the compounding of causes...
;)The link is broken. Although the subject matter is intriguing. Can I correct it?
the first footnote is not a reference. Read the other two.
;)
But if anyone would post this work by Slutsky, I'd be grateful.
No no no... ! You can read the proof in popular form in Heisenberg's book "Part and whole". (Chapter 10: Quantum mechanics and Kant's philosophy.)
I read it a long time ago, about 20 years ago :)
Which chapter? There's no chapter by that name. There's chapter 9, "Quantum Theory and the Structure of Matter".
I myself am rather inclined to think that randomness is not a property of the model, but something fundamental.
P.S. Sorry, my mistake. I looked at wrong book. I found it.
I read it a long time ago, about 20 years ago :)
What chapter? There's no chapter by that name. There's chapter 9, "Quantum Theory and the Structure of Matter".
I myself am rather inclined to think that randomness is not a property of the model, but something fundamental.
Hail to Darwinism!
;)
I'm still leaning towards 'selection'.
And I also suggest generalising Mendel's model and Cantor's 'bloody ladder'...
;)
Darwinism be praised!
;)
That's me still leaning towards 'selection'.
In fact, the relationships between the theories (Lamarck vs Darwin) and (Einstein vs Heisenberg) seem to be perfectly isomorphic. I marvel, but the resemblance is striking.
Aha!