Representation of an object in programming. - page 4
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
We must not forget the metaphysics of object-oriented ontology, which rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of non-human objects. OO rejects anthropocentric views, as accepted by most other contemporary metaphysics, in which phenomenal objects are said to correspond to the mind of the subject and in turn become products of human cognition. Object-oriented ontology claims that objects exist independently (like Kantian noumena) of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relationship to humans or other objects. OOO criticises the post-Kantian reduction of philosophical enquiry to a correlation between thinking and being, so that the reality of anything beyond this correlation is incomprehensible, and precedes speculative realism and makes clear statements about the nature and equality of object relations with which not all speculative realists agree.
Object-oriented ontology opposes the dominant tendency in Immanuel Kant's philosophy of correlationism. He argues that everything that exists does so in human consciousness, often characterised as a form of idealism. Here man is given a central position (anthropocentrism). Man can then cognise phenomenal things only through the senses, but not in the noumen, often equated with the thing-in-itself. The difference between object-oriented ontology and Kant is that in object-oriented ontology there are real objects, but we cannot know them, with Kant there is even the question of whether real objects exist.
Object-oriented thinking holds that there are two main strategies for devaluing the philosophical meaning of objects. First, one can undermine objects by claiming that they are an effect or manifestation of a deeper, more profound substance or force. Secondly, one can 'undermine' objects either by idealism, which claims that there is nothing below what appears in the mind, or, as in social constructionism, by placing no independent reality outside language, discourse or power. Object-oriented philosophy rejects both subversion and 'undermining'.
Unlike other speculative realities, object-oriented ontology supports the concept of finiteness, according to which object relations cannot be transformed into direct and complete knowledge of an object. Since all object relations distort related objects, each relation is called an act of translation with the caveat that no object can perfectly translate another object into its own nomenclature. However, object-oriented ontology does not restrict finiteness to humanity, but extends it to all objects as an inherent limitation of relationality.
Object-oriented ontology holds that objects are independent not only of other objects, but also of the qualities they animate in any given spatio-temporal location. Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations to people or other objects in theory or practice, which means that the reality of objects is always present at hand. Holding an object's reality in excess of any relation is called withdrawal.
In essence, the Copernican revolution would reduce philosophical enquiry to the question of a single relation: the gap between man and the world. Indeed, by reducing philosophy to an interrogation of this single relation or gap, not only would there be an overemphasis on how people relate to the world to the detriment of something else, but this interrogation would be deeply asymmetrical. Because the world or object connected through human will becomes simply a support or conduit for human cognition, language and intentions, without contributing anything of its own.
To counter the form of post-Kantian epistemology, three principles of ontology are formulated. Firstly, the Otnik principle states that 'there is no difference that does not matter'. Assuming that questions of difference precede epistemological interrogation and that they must create difference, this principle asserts that knowledge cannot be fixed before it comes into contact with difference. So, the thesis that there is a thing-in-itself that we cannot know is untenable because it presupposes forms of being that have no difference. Similarly, conceptions of difference based on negation - what objects are absent or non-existent when compared to one another - are rejected as arising only from the point of view of consciousness.
Secondly, the principle of inhumanity argues that the concept of difference generating difference is not limited to the human, socio-cultural or epistemological realm, thereby noting the existence of difference as independent of knowledge and consciousness. Human beings exist as beings of difference among other beings that create difference, therefore, without taking any special position vis-à-vis other differences.
Thirdly, the ontological principle asserts that if there is no difference, which is also irrelevant, then the creation of difference is the minimum condition for the existence of being. Otherwise, 'if there is a difference, then there is being'. Further, the differences created by an object can be inter-ontological (created in relation to another object) or intra-ontological (relating to the internal constitution of the object).
All of this is very important for trading.
...
It's all very important for trading.
Original philosophical trolling). Curious who the author of this monument is. And for trading, among other things, the development of abstract thinking is important (you can't argue with that), and sometimes it's nice to stretch it. ))
Original philosophical trolling). Curious who is the author of this monument. And for trading, among other things, the development of abstract thinking is important (would not you argue?) and sometimes it's good to stretch it. ))
It's quite a legitimate philosophical concept, by Graham Harman (original thesis, 1999) and then Levi Bryant (2009) and Timothy Morton with hyperobjects, then Jan Bogost with his "alien phenomenology", and especially interesting then"Immaterialism" again from Harman (2016), in short the gist is that some objects cannot be formally defined precisely, for example a fleet consists of ships and crews, but the composition of crews is constantly changing as ships go out for repairs and new ones are introduced, so the object fleet although relying on other objects (ship, people) but exists regardless of their specific materiality (if part of the fleet dies, new sailors can be called in and new ships built).
OOO is met with severe rejection by representatives of "traditional" philosophy, as it too devalues human existence in such a model of the world, as an example, one can listen to Dugin spitting indignantly about it, it is even amusing in some places. Some cultural critics, such as Stephen Shaviro condemns OOO in connection with "undermining objects" and epiphenomena. Also all those associated with theological movements are also out of touch with "slipping into the nihilism of some speculative realists, where human values are an accident in an indifferent and fundamentally entropic universe".
Other critical commentators such as David Berry and Alexander Galloway have commented on the historical localisation of ontology that reflects computational processes and even the metaphors and language of computation. Pancomputerism and digital philosophy explore these ideas further.
It is probably the latter that will be most interesting for us, due to the attempt to represent and describe market objects, which often causes a hell of a lot of chorus in the forums.
In general, I am only interested in abstract philosophy about the Object as much as I need to understand its software implementation and improve it. No more than that.
To give a more concrete example, let's take the most understandable instance of an Object - a rectangular label on a pixel screen. It is probably the clearest example of an object, unlike some parabolas or mathematical systems.
1. Let's make the marker the basis for "hinging" functions and properties as needed.
2. At certain moments we will multiply and change labels, creating new views.
3. we will create an environment out of labels and work with the environment as an independent object (assign its properties, functions and attributes).
4. Next, when enough diversity is achieved, we will start to classify the generated content. That is, we'll build a hierarchical structure with categories, according to which the total content of different types of objects (labels) will be packed.
5. Let's complicate a "life" of labels by adding States (new values of parameters), Events (meaningful changes), Processes (sequences of changes).
6. Let's build an Event model and above it a logical model linking labels with their states, events and processes.
7. Let's run the "life" of this "Environment" at a clock frequency and through many threads (for acceleration), but through shared memory (so that the program works with shared memory).
In essence, I have roughly described the steps of how Thinking builds systems. The challenge is to find software tools (or create them) to reproduce this. I think this will get us closer to real AI.
7. Let's run the "life" of this "Environment" at a clock frequency and through many threads (for acceleration), but through shared memory (so that the program works with shared memory).
In essence, I have roughly described the steps of how Thinking builds systems. The challenge is to find software tools (or create them) to reproduce this. I think that will get us closer to real AI.
Well that's too simple an example, real AI requires processes identical or superior to what happens in the natural brain, in general as we know from biology intelligence sort of grows as experience accumulates and neural connections build in relation to that experience, transferring direct sensation into more abstract feelings.
...
It is probably the latter that is of most interest to us, because of the attempted representation and description of market objects, which often causes a hell of a lot of chorus on the forums.
I'm glad there's some use for trading on this topic as well.
Well this is too simple an example, true AI requires processes identical or superior to what happens in the natural brain, in general as we know from biology intelligence sort of grows with experience and builds neural connections relative to that experience, transferring direct sensation into more abstract feelings.
Agree that we cannot simply "pick up and find out" what exactly is going on in our brains in terms of "software functionality". There is no empirical method to be applied here. We need to logically get to the bottom of exactly how the brain builds/reproduces/processes systems. Experience undoubtedly plays a huge role in consciousness, but we are still very far from understanding these processes and should probably start with the simpler things.
I am glad that this topic is useful for trading as well.
Well, of course I was trolling a bit, but nevertheless I meant that if we talk about AI and objects, we will inevitably touch the problem of market object identification and differences from other objects, by objects I meant situations like "volatility contraction", "consolidation", "momentum", etc.
Agree that we cannot simply "find out" what is going on in our brains in terms of "software functionality". There is no empirical method to be applied here. We need to logically get to the bottom of how exactly the brain builds/reproduces/processes systems. Certainly experience plays a huge role in consciousness, but we are still very far from understanding these processes and probably should start with simpler things.
I agree, as this is fundamentally a different architecture, the way the brain works, but for trading it is probably not needed, the closest thing to me seems to be the subject of object recognition down to the definition of proto-images.
Well, of course I was trolling a bit, but nevertheless I implied that if we talk about AI and objects, we will inevitably touch the problem of identifying a market object and distinguishing it from other objects, by objects I meant situations like "volatility compression", "consolidation", "momentum", etc.
OK. Let's take a trading strategy as an Object and see how it shapes up. I am sure we will find the same archetype as in the tagged example:
1. Strategy is a system of actions aimed at increasing profits from market trading.
2. Actions are organized into algorithms which are activated by certain conditions.
3. Conditions are organized into static logical model, which directly connects external market events and internal reactions of the program. Therefore, we have an external environment, an Event Model (selected changes of the environment with "hinged" significance, which organize them into a hierarchy), and our actions in the form of system state changes - changes of values of important parameters, triggering processes - for example, calculation cycles and generation of secondary events for additional, less important algorithms.
In other words, we have the same Object components in the automatic trading strategy as in the abstract example with tags: The External Environment from which Events are taken and placed in Conditions (and checked at the clock frequency). These in turn form the Logical Model. Further, we have a hierarchy of Event Model, which allows to order and optimize the sequence of environment checks, ... we have States - important values of market parameters and the system itself (a deposit, for example), ... we have Processes - sequences of market states/events that we perceive through multiple data and indicators.
Thus, we use one thinking archetype (one engine) to build meaningless as well as meaningful systems. It is this principle that I am trying to fully understand in order to reproduce regardless of any specific task.