The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 199
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
And I've always been struck by the relationship between pi and e. It's like a series of quotes - both are unpredictable, but if you subtract them...
If you think about it, it's not surprising.
Pi reflects the cyclicity of natural processes (the circle is the ideal of cyclicity), e reflects the fact that they are all described by diffeomorphic or difference equations (most typical solutions of which include an exponent). It would be surprising if these two sides of nature were not closely related.
Should, shouldn't... It should, if you want it to, it should go nowhere else. It has nowhere else to go, because there is nothing else. There never has been and there never will be.
And that's the way it is with us people. The truth is always the truth that can't stand criticism. )))Hmm? So you already put this imho next to the truth? Oh, that's good. ;))))
hmm? So you put this imho next to the truth? That's a good one. ;))))
is that your criticism? ;)
A very typical criticism, of course, like a fist bump to keep your head down. )
)- that's a very good argument when you don't have anything else. ))
// "it's still spinning!"
is that your criticism? ;)
A very typical criticism, of course, like a fist bump to keep your head down. )
)- that's a very good argument when you don't have anything else. ))
// "and it's still spinning !"
MetaDriver :Processes go from the present to the past and the future.
Where does it go?
From your statement we conclude that at each moment of the present the universe arises from nothing and then constructs its entire prehistory -- the process from the present to the past. Is any criticism required here at all?
This imho completely rejects the principle of causality. Or rather, it doesn't even reject it; it is simply unfamiliar with it.
I think the conclusion is:
P + N + B = 1
where: P, N, B are, respectively, past, present and future functions, first identified and proved here, on our resource: https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250, can also take its rightful place among the given mathematical masterpieces. Who can suggest where to go to describe and substantiate this statement?
Ph.D., you never cease to amaze me. Apply to any peer-reviewed journal on the subject. (There are some that will publish any nonsense for a small fee)
Just don't forget to publish a review afterwards, we'll have a laugh together.
Where does it go?
From your assertion we get the conclusion that at every moment of the present the universe arises out of nothing and then its entire prehistory is constructed -- a process from the present to the past.
Nothing of the sort follows from my statement. the universe is quite stable. though of course (:with varying success:) it evolves. which does not prevent it from always being exclusively in the present.
Is any criticism required here at all?
This imho completely rejects the principle of causality. Or rather, it doesn't even reject it, it's just not familiar with it.
There's something wrong with your own causality. :)
at least give me a definition of "causality", in case I'm really not familiar with your causality.
Dictionaries and encyclopaedias on the Academy
CAUSALITY
CAUSALITY (from Latin causa cause) is causality, efficacy, regular connection of cause and effect. The principle (causal principle or law) of causality expresses the following: every phenomenon has a cause (is caused, is an action) and at the same time is the cause of other phenomenon, or, on the contrary, nothing appears without a cause. The cause and the action form a chain coming from the past(see PROTON KINUN), penetrating the present and vanishing in the future (causal connection; see CONNECTION). Looking more closely, the cause is decomposed into (external) circumstances under which something happens, (internal) conditions by which it occurs and the excitement that serves as the immediate cause. If the gunpowder is dry (circumstance) and properly made(condition), it is due to the impact(excitation) that it ignites(action). The concept of causality is a generalisation of the experience that something, an "action", takes place if and only if something else, a "cause" has taken place or is taking place at the time. It is easy to fall into the mistake of mistaking 'post hoc', i.e. temporary 'after that', for 'propter hoc', i.e. causal 'therefore'. Natural phenomena are called causally explicable, and the connections between them are called consistent with the principle of causality, because with regard to this principle in general the question is not primarily about a mental, but about an objective, real connection, which cannot contradict the results of research of natural sciences. In the history of philosophy the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and as a strictly causalconnection of phenomena by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages the question of causality in nature was not developed at all. It was only in the new science of nature(Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) that the principle of consistent causality in nature, which does not explain it by supernatural intervention, began to be investigated again intensively. This naturally scientifically explained objective concept of causality was opposed by a subjective understanding of causality, defended above all by English empiricists. For example, according to Hume the belief in causality is based on association, expectation and habit. Kant regarded the universal principle of causality as a priori, but having value only in the realm of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: causality in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic-plant life) and motive (in the actions of all animate beings). Mill, Spencer and others tried to understand and explain causality on the basis of experience alone, through induction. Positivism(Comte, Avenarius, Mach, etc.) replaced the concept of causality by the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause by "condition"(see CONDITIONISM). In the spirit of the newest ontology causality refers to categories. It is one of the categories of the possibility to define the existing(see Doctrine of Layers). The newest physicists deny the unlimited applicability of the causality principle in the microcosm; it is applied as a workinghypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. UNCERTAINTY RELATION, FOUNDATION. Causal (from Latin) causal, corresponding to a causal law.Philosophical Encyclopaedic Dictionary. 2010.
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/508/%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%A3%D0%97%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%AC%D0%9D%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%AC
It's murky. Nobody knows anything, but there you go.
The only relatively bright spot:
avtomat:
The newest physicists deny unlimited applicability of the causality principle in the microcosm; it is applied as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. cf. UNCERTAINTY RELATION, FOUNDATION.
However, back to our troubled times.
Please explain to me, silly, with fingers: How the past (which does not exist) can cause the present (which does exist), and even more the future (which again does not exist).
?
;)
I hope it's clear with causality, otherwise causality.
But maybe you put some meaning in the words present, past, future?
Because from what you're saying.
MetaDriver: вселенная вполне стабильна. хотя конечно же (:с переменным успехом:) эволюционирует. что не мешает её всегда пребывать исключительно в настоящем.
it follows that the present is either the present moment or the whole interval of existence. Where is the place of the past in that case?
Because from your statement
MetaDriver : the universe is quite stable. although of course (:with variable success:) it evolves. which does not prevent it fromalways being exclusively in the present.
It follows that the present is either the current moment or the whole interval of existence.
What the hell kind of "interval of existence" is that? All intervals I've ever seen are in space. // on graphs, for example.
// if you're trying to introduce your confusion of map and territory to me, I warn you right away - no chance. I'm strict about it... :)
Where is the place of the past in that case?
;)